↓ Skip to main content

A phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy and safety of grass allergy immunotherapy tablet in subjects with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, with or without asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 112)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy and safety of grass allergy immunotherapy tablet in subjects with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, with or without asthma
Published in
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1477-5751-12-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin Murphy, Sandra Gawchik, David Bernstein, Jens Andersen, Martin Rud Pedersen

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Design and execution of immunotherapy trials for seasonal allergies may be complicated by numerous factors including variable allergy testing methods, pollen levels, and timing and intensity of other seasonal allergens. We evaluated grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) treatment in North American adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C), with/without asthma. METHODS: Subjects age 18--65 with clinical history of grass pollen--induced AR/C, with/without asthma were randomized 1:1 to once-daily 2800 BAU Timothy grass AIT (oral lyophilisate, Phleum pratense, 75,000 SQ-T, containing approximately 15 mug of Phl p 5) or placebo. The AR/C symptom and medication scores were recorded daily. The primary end point was the average AR/C daily symptom score (DSS) during the entire grass pollen season (GPS). Ranked key secondary end points were Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score, daily medication score (DMS), and percentage of well days, all over entire GPS. Safety was monitored through adverse event reporting. RESULTS: Efficacy analysis included 289 subjects. Over the entire GPS, mean DSS was 6% lower with AIT versus placebo (5.69 vs. 6.06), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.3475) despite significantly higher immunological response in the grass AIT group. No significant between-group differences were seen for key secondary end points. In general, DSS was high before GPS began and no clear relationship between DSS and grass pollen counts was seen during GPS. In post hoc analysis of subjects with pre-seasonal DSS <=3, mean DSS and DMS were both significantly lower with grass AIT versus placebo (27%; p = 0.0327 and 68%; p = 0.0060, respectively). In this subgroup a relationship between DSS and grass pollen counts was observed. Grass AIT was generally well tolerated, with no events of anaphylactic shock or respiratory compromise. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, 2800 BAU grass AIT did not demonstrate significant symptom improvement versus placebo. Lack of relationship between pollen count and symptom score in the study population, and post hoc findings among subjects with low pre-seasonal symptoms, suggest that the symptoms reported in this study were not primarily reflective of the effects of grass pollen exposure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Other 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2014.
All research outputs
#6,453,990
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#36
of 112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,145
of 194,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.