MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072806284 · doi:10.2147/jaa.s82077

A major step forward for sublingual immunotherapy: the quality of 5-grass pollen tablet is recognized also in Italy

2015· article· en· W2072806284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Franco Frati, Giorgio Ciprandi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asthma and Allergy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAllergen immunotherapyAllergic conjunctivitisAllergyImmunologyImmunotherapyAllergenImmunoglobulin EImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear editor After a century of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), for the first time, the Italian Agency for Drugs (AIFA [Agenzia italiana per il farmaco]) has just approved the full reimbursement (A class) for an AIT product, such as the 5-grass pollen tablet with the indication for treating allergic rhinitis (AR). On the other hand, AR represents a relevant health issue as the worldwide prevalence is approximately 20%.1 AR is sustained by an IgE-mediated inflammatory reaction that in turn induces typical symptom occurrence. Allergic inflammation is promoted by an allergen-specific defect of T-regulatory cells and a Th2 polarization.2 This impaired immune response characterizes the two main peculiarities of allergic reaction: systemic IgE production and nasal eosinophil infiltrate.3 AR has also a significant social burden both in terms of high costs and individual complaints, mainly negatively affecting quality of life. AR treatment is traditionally based on drug prescription, such as antihistamines and topical corticosteroids. However, the main limit of drug therapy is that it is essentially symptomatic and its efficacy quickly stops after suspension. On the contrary, AIT is the unique causal therapy of AR as it is able of inducing a long-lasting immunological and clinical tolerance toward the causal allergen.4 The mechanism of action of AIT is based on restored T-regulatory function and re-direction of immune response to a physiological Th1-oriented pathway.5 AIT consists of administering increasing doses of the causal allergen extract able to reduce allergic symptoms.6 There is strengthened evidence that AIT is effective and safe as recognized by the meta-analysis approach.7 At present, sublingual immunotherapy is commonly prescribed for AR patients as effective and well tolerated. The 5-grass pollen tablet according to a pre-co-seasonal course, has the indication for AR and/or conjunctivitis treatment in adult or pediatric (over 5 years) patients with severe symptoms as documented by two regulatory studies.8,9 AIFA’s decision of full-reimbursement for the 5-grass pollen tablet has been based on the qualified requirements of this product: allergen panel composition, effectiveness, safety, standardization, adequate dosage, and pharmaco-economic impact. First, sublingual tablets are composed of 5-grass pollens, belonging to Pooideae family (Dactylis glomerata, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Lolium perenne, Poa pratensis, and Phleum pratense). This 5-grass mixture is appropriate according to the production of pollen by the grasses as evidenced by phenological studies.10 In fact, the approach by phenology demonstrated that the different grasses yield their pollen in dissimilar times of the season in a specific geographical area in Italy and that some grasses, such as P. pratense, produce their pollen in periods out of the pollen peaks in the atmosphere, when patients have no more intense symptoms.10 Of course, the presence of a given grass species is closely related to symptom appearance in grass allergic patients. Thus, the 5-grass mixture extract has optimal characteristics to cover the whole grass pollination period, so assuring a clinical effectiveness for a large population of grass pollen allergic patients. In addition, it has been reported that the 5-grass pollen mixture has ideal immunological capability of inducing immunization in AR patients,11,12 considering that 5-grass pollen tablet contains a large array of allergens naturally occurring in the atmosphere, that trigger allergic symptoms. An immunological study demonstrated that in children living in the Mediterranean area the 5-grass mixture is more alike to natural grass exposure than P. pratense extract alone.13 Another interesting issue is the molecular aspect, because among the grass species there is a lot of differences in the amino acid sequence of the allergens from the group 1 and 5, as confirmed by a study of Moingeon et al14 who highlighted by mass spectrometry the different three-dimensional structure of these allergens between the Pooideae that results in a large number of epitopes that are not shared among the various species. Indeed, the characteristics of 5-grass pollen tablet have a clinical relevance as the administration of the 5-grass-pollen mixture allows to obtain quick effectiveness. In this regard, a study using the “Vienna chamber” model showed that 5-grass pollen tablet significantly reduced allergic symptoms after 7–30 days.15 Moreover, an economic evaluation stated that 5-grass pollen tablet is a cost-effective treatment in patients with grass pollen-induced seasonal AR.16 Another intriguing aspect is that its cost-effectiveness increases with the severity of AR symptoms as evidenced by a recent analysis concerning the higher clinical efficacy of the 5-grass pollen tablet treatment in patients with more severe AR.17 These outcomes should be thoroughly taken into consideration in the management of AR patients. It is also of note that 5-grass pollen tablet is a drug listed as treating grass allergy with AIT by the Canadian Drug Expert Committee. In conclusion, the AIFA decision about the full reimbursement of an AIT product for AR treatment has an outstanding importance for 5-grass pollen tablet, this fact provides a new consideration of AIT and paves the way to a new era in the centenary AIT history.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Asthma and AllergySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207