Search

Topical mast cell stabilizers were previously shown to treat the signs and symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis safely and effectively in active and placebo-controlled trials. However, mast cell stabilizers have not been compared to topical corticosteroids for efficacy. We tested the non-inferiority of a topical mast cell stabilizer, N-acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid (4.9%, NAAGA), compared to fluorometholone (0.1%, FM) during controlled exposures to the airborne birch pollen allergen, Bet v 1, in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC).This randomized, cross-over, investigator-blinded study included 24 patients with a history of birch pollen allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were randomized to 5 days of treatment with NAAGA, then FM (n = 12) or FM, then NAAGA (n = 12). After each treatment, patients were exposed to a fixed airborne concentration of Bet v 1 in ALYATEC EEC. The primary endpoint was the amount of allergen required to trigger a conjunctival response (Abelson score ≥5). Groups were compared with a linear model for cross-over studies. Non-inferiority was assumed, when the lower bound of the risk ratio confidence interval (CI) was0.5.At screening, the mean time-to-conjunctival response was 72.5 ± 35.9 min. NAAGA and FM extended the response time to 114.8 ± 55.0 and 116.6 ± 51.5 min respectively. The mean amounts of allergen required to trigger a conjunctival response were 1.165 ng after NAAGA and 1.193 ng after FM treatment. The risk ratio for the conjunctival response was 0.977 (95% CI: 0.812; 1.174), which indicated non-inferiority. Adverse events occurred less frequently with NAAGA (29.2%) than with FM (58.3%).In patients with allergic conjunctivitis to birch pollen, NAAGA was non-inferior to FM in exposures to airborne Bet v 1. The EEC was a good model for simulating real-life airborne allergen exposure and for demonstrating the efficacy and safety of eye drops for treating allergic conjunctivitis.Not registered.

Background Air cleaners have been promoted for respiratory allergic disease prevention, but there is no clear clinical proof of their efficacy in allergic asthma. Objective To examine the efficacy of a new air cleaner on early and late asthmatic responses in cat-allergic patients. Methods This randomized, cross-over, double-blind placebo-controlled study enrolled 24 cat-asthmatic patients with GINA 1 asthma. At baseline, participants were exposed to 40 ng/m3 of airborne cat allergen for a maximum of 2 hours in ALYATEC® environmental exposure chamber (EEC). All participants were subsequently randomized into two groups that were exposed to cat allergen, either with active then placebo air cleaners or with placebo then active air cleaners with a 3-week interval in the EEC. This study was registered under number (NCT03928561). Results Fewer patients experienced an EAR with active air cleaners (seven patients; 29.17%) than placebo (21 patients; 87.50%). The response incidence was lower with active than with placebo air cleaners. A Cox model demonstrated a significant treatment effect (hazard ratio, 0.10; P = .002). Active air cleaners also prevented late asthmatic response: four patients (16.67%) had a late asthmatic response with active air cleaners compared to 11 patients (45.83%) with placebo (Prescott test P = .002). Active air cleaners also decreased the maximal severity of bronchial response (FEV1 decrease of 17.24% with active vs 25.62% with placebo air cleaners; P = .001). Conclusions Our present results demonstrated that Intense Pure Air XL® air cleaners significantly prevented early and late asthmatic responses among cat-allergic asthmatics during cat allergen exposure in the ALYATEC® EEC.