The Immune Tolerance Network, Bethesda, Md.
Inflamax Research Limited, DBA Cliantha Research, Mississauga, Canada.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jun;145(6):1585-1597. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.02.024. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
The direct-instillation nasal allergen challenge (NAC) and the environmental exposure chamber (EEC) are 2 methods of conducting controlled allergen provocations. The clinical and biological comparability of these methods has not been thoroughly investigated.
We sought to compare clinical and immunologic responses to cat allergen in NAC versus EEC.
Twenty-four participants were randomized to receive either NAC followed by a 2-day challenge in an EEC or a 2-day challenge in an EEC followed by NAC. Challenges were separated by 28-day washout periods. We measured total nasal symptom scores, peak nasal inspiratory flow, nasal (0-8 hours) and serum cytokines, serum antibodies, peripheral blood antigen-specific T lymphocytes, and gene expression in nasal scrapings. The primary outcome was the total nasal symptom score area under the curve for the first 3 hours after allergen exposure in NAC or after initiation of exposure in EEC.
Both challenges increased IL-5 and IL-13 in nasal fluids and serum and resulted in altered nasal cell expression of gene modules related to mucosal biology and transcriptional regulation. Changes in gene modules, more so than cytokine measurements, showed significant associations with total nasal symptom score and peak nasal inspiratory flow. Overall, EEC exposure generated larger responses and more early terminations compared with NAC. Although the 2 challenges did not correlate in symptom magnitude or temporality, striking correlations were observed in cytokine levels.
Although clinical outcomes of NAC and EEC were temporally different and nonequivalent in magnitude, immunologic responses were similar. Selection of a particular allergen challenge method should depend on considerations of study objectives and cost.
直接滴注鼻腔变应原激发(NAC)和环境暴露舱(EEC)是进行控制变应原激发的两种方法。这两种方法的临床和生物学可比性尚未得到彻底研究。
我们旨在比较 NAC 和 EEC 中猫过敏原激发的临床和免疫反应。
24 名参与者被随机分配接受 NAC 后在 EEC 中进行为期 2 天的挑战,或在 EEC 中进行为期 2 天的挑战后再进行 NAC。两次挑战之间有 28 天的洗脱期。我们测量了总鼻症状评分、最大鼻吸气流量、鼻(0-8 小时)和血清细胞因子、血清抗体、外周血抗原特异性 T 淋巴细胞和鼻刮片中的基因表达。主要结局是 NAC 中过敏原暴露后前 3 小时或 EEC 中暴露开始后的总鼻症状评分曲线下面积。
两种激发均增加了鼻液和血清中的 IL-5 和 IL-13,并导致与粘膜生物学和转录调节相关的鼻细胞基因表达模块发生改变。与细胞因子测量相比,基因模块的变化与总鼻症状评分和最大鼻吸气流量的相关性更显著。总的来说,EEC 暴露引起的反应比 NAC 更大,且更多的试验提前终止。尽管两种激发在症状严重程度或时间进程上没有相关性,但在细胞因子水平上观察到了显著的相关性。
尽管 NAC 和 EEC 的临床结果在时间上不同,且严重程度不等,但免疫反应相似。选择特定的变应原激发方法应取决于研究目标和成本的考虑。