Trial reportAllergy2025
Subcutaneous Allergen Immunotherapy in Adults Allergic to House Dust Mites: A Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of house dust mite allergen immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: a network meta-analysis based on component-resolved classification.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Real-World Effectiveness of Polymerized House-Dust-Mite Subcutaneous Immunotherapy up to 24 Months: Why Baseline Symptom Severity Shapes Measurement of the Combined Symptom-Medication Response.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prospective Evaluation of Symptom Burden and Medication Use in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis/Rhinoconjunctivitis Patients Considering Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- How to Employ Trained Immunity and Trained Immunity-Based Vaccines to Inhibit Allergic Inflammation.Vaccines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) has a longstanding history as a safe and effective treatment. Nevertheless, to meet the European Medicines Agency's regulatory requirements for continued market authorization, its efficacy and safety must be confirmed in a pivotal Phase III trial.
objectiveBased on a successful Phase II dose-finding study, the aim was to confirm the safety and efficacy of a subcutaneous house dust mites (HDM) preparation in a randomized controlled trial using an optimal higher dose than the current maintenance dose.
methodSeven hundred sixty-seven subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1-year treatment with SCIT-product at a dose of 50,000 AUeq/mL or placebo. Out of these, 682 subjects completed the study. The primary endpoint was assessed using the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS(n)), which focuses on nasal symptoms, as specified by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI).
resultsThe primary endpoint showed a trend (p = 0.0767) with a mean treatment effect of -0.12 (95% CI, -0.3 to 0) toward a favorable change in mean CSMS(n) for active compared to placebo treatment. This treatment effect of 0.12 points did however not meet the prespecified minimal clinically relevant difference of 0.25 points. Among the 767 randomized patients, 539 had mild symptoms and 228 patients had moderate to severe HDM allergic symptoms, defined by a mean baseline daily symptom score (dSS(n)) of at least 2. Post hoc analysis of the clinical data, focusing on this subgroup of patients with moderate to severe symptoms, revealed a significant treatment effect for the primary endpoint, with a clinically meaningful reduction of -0.39 points (95% CI, -0.64 to -0.13; p = 0.0031) thereby surpassing the minimal prespecified difference of 0.25 points. No additional safety concerns were observed in the moderate to severe symptom group compared with the minor symptom group.
conclusionTreatment with the tested SCIT-product at a dose of 50,000 AUeq/mL was safe and well tolerated. The primary outcome was not met, with no significant difference observed between the active and placebo groups. A likely explanation might be the inclusion of mainly patients with mild symptoms of rhino conjunctivitis (539 of in total 767 randomized subjects). Post hoc analysis, however, indicated that SCIT was effective in the subgroup of patients with moderate to severe disease, suggesting that the overall study outcome may have been influenced by the inclusion of a large proportion of patients with only mild symptoms of HDM-induced rhino-conjunctivitis. As a consequence, reconfirming efficacy requires adequate baseline symptom severity, especially in HDM allergic patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.