Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of allergen vaccine potency

  • Published:
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of reliable and clinically relevant potency assays is essential to the practice of safe and effective allergen-specific immunotherapy. Allergen standardization in the United States is based on the establishment of a national reference assigned with a biological potency unit to which manufacturers’ products are compared using validated relative potency assays. This ensures, at least with standardized allergen vaccines, comparability between lots used in clinical practice. Recent progress in the ability to measure the specific allergen content of allergen vaccines has led to its application in monitoring consistency and characterizing allergen preparations. More recently, the "major allergen" content of allergen vaccines has become a means to compare extracts from different manufacturers and to recommend immunotherapy dosing regimens. At the same time, qualitative differences exist between manufacturers’ products, and most allergen vaccines used in clinical practice are nonstandardized. Therefore, this approach can be confusing and is misleading. The establishment of additional allergen reference standards and the development of reliable, accurate, and clinically relevant potency assays are urgently needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Morrow KS, Slater JE: Regulatory aspects of allergen vaccines in the US. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2001, 21:141–152.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grier TJ: Laboratory methods for allergen extract analysis and quality control. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2001, 21:111–140.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Noon L: Prophylactic inoculation against hay fever. Lancet 1911, i:1572–1573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. May JC, Sih JT, Miller JR, Seligmann EB Jr: Optimization of parameters in protein nitrogen unit precipitation procedure for allergenic extracts. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1979, 63:87–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Turkeltaub PC: Biological standardization. Arb Paul Ehrlich Institut 1997, 91:145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Turkeltaub PC, Rastogi SC, Baer H, et al.: A standardized quantitative skin-test assay of allergen potency and stability: studies on the allergen dose-response curve and effect of wheal, erythema, and patient selection on assay results. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1982, 70:343–352.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Malling HJ: Skin prick testing in biological standardization of allergenic products. Arb Paul Ehrlich Institut 1997, 91:157–163.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dreborg S: Precision of biological standardization of allergenic preparations. Allergy 1992, 47:291–294.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dreborg S, Sjogren I, Eriksson NE, Einarsson R: Selection of patients for biological standardization as exemplified by standardization of mugwort, goosefoot and English plantain pollen allergen extracts/preparations. Allergy 1987, 42:485–495.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rabin RL, Slater JE, Lachenbrunch P, Pastor RW: Sample size considerations for establishing bioequivalence of allergen formulations. Arb Paul Ehrlich Institut 2002, 94:24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Casas R, Ferrandiz R, Wihl JA, et al.: Biologic activity of Dermatophagoides siboney and Blomia tropicalis allergens in exposed and unexposed mite-allergic individuals. Effect of patient selection on the biologic standardization of mite extracts. Allergy 1999, 54:392–396.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cromwell O, Weber B, Kahlert H, Fiebig H: Standardization in quality control of modified end-products. Arb Paul Ehrlich Insitut 1999, 93:93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibarrola I, Sanz ML, Gamboa PM, et al.: Biological characteristization of gluaraldehyde-modified Parietaria judaica pollen extracts. Clin Exp Allergy 2004, 34:303–309.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferreira F, Briza P, Infuhr D, et al.: Modified recombinant allergen for safer immunotherapy. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets 2006 5:5–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Niederberger V, Valenta R: Molecular approaches for new vaccines against allergy. Expert Rev Vaccines 2006, 5:103–110.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Alexander C, Kay AB, Larche M: Peptide-based vaccines in the treatment of specific allergy. Curr Drug Targets Inflamm Allergy 2002, 1:353–361.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Turkeltaub PC: Allergen vaccine unitage based on biological standardization: clinical significance. In Allergen and Allergen Immunotherapy. Edited by Lockey R, Bukantz SC. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1999:321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Food and Drug Administration: ELISA competition assay: quantitative determination of relative potency of allergenic extracts. In Methods of the Allergenic Products Testing Laboratory. CBER/FDA; 1998.

  19. Esch RE: Allergen source materials and quality control of allergenic extracts. Methods 1997, 13:2–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dobrovolskaia E, Gam A, Slater JE: Competition enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) can be a sensitive method for the specific detection of small quantities of allergen in a complex mixture. Clin Exp Allergy 2006, 36:525–530.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Afferni C, Pini C, Tinghino R, et al.: Use of monoclonal antibodies in the standardization of Parietaria judaica allergenic extracts. Biologicals 1995, 23:239–247.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaul S, Scheurer S, Danz N, et al.: Monoclonal IgE antibodies against birch pollen allergens: novel tools for biological standardization of allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003, 111:1262–1268.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vogel L, Luttkopf D, Hatahet L, et al.: Development of a functional in vitro assay as a novel tool for the standardization of allergen extracts in the human system. Allergy 2005, 60:1021–1028.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Baer H, Godfrey H, Maloney CJ, et al.: The potency and antigen E content of commercially prepared ragweed extracts. J Allergy 1970, 45:347–354.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Baer H, Maloney CJ, Norman PS, Marsh DG: The potency and Group I antigen content of six commercially prepared grass pollen extracts. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1974, 54:157–164.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Anderson MC, Baer H: Allergenically active components of cat allergen extracts. J Immunol 1981, 127:972–975.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Duffort O, Calabozo B, Gonzalez R, et al.: Monoclonal antibody-based ELISA to quantify the major allergen of Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) pollen, Cyn d 1. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2004, 135:277–283.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramirez J, Obispo TM, Duffort D, et al.: Group 5 determination in Pooideae grass pollen extracts by monoclonal antibody-based ELISA. Correlation with biologic activity. Allergy 1997, 52:806–813.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jimeno L, Duffort O, Serrano C, et al.: Monoclonal antibodybased ELISA to quantify the major allergen of Artemisia vulgaris pollen, Art v 1. Allergy 2004, 59:995–1001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Arilla MC, Eraso E, Ibarrola I, et al.: Monoclonal antibody-based method measuring olive pollen major allergen Ole e 1. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002, 89:83–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Arilla, MC, Ibarrola I, Garcia R, et al.: Quantification of the major allergen from cypress (Cupressus arizonica) pollen, Cup a 1, by monoclonal antibody-based ELISA. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2004, 134:10–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Arilla MC, Ibarrola I, Mir A, et al.: Development of a sandwich-type ELISA for measuring Pla a 1, the major allergen of Platanus acerifolia pollen. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2005, 138:127–133.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Yi FC, Lee BW, Cheong N, Chua KY: Quantification of Blot t 5 in mite and dust extracts by two-site ELISA. Allergy 2005, 60:108–112.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jimeno L, Duffort O, Serrano C, et al.: Monoclonal antibodybased ELISA to quantify the major allergen of Artemisia vulgaris pollen, Art v 1. Allergy 2004, 59:995–1001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Arilla MC, Gonzalez-Rioja R, Ibarrola I, et al.: A sensitive monoclonal antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to quantify Parietaria judaica major allergens, Par j 1 and Par j 2. Clin Exp Allergy 2006, 36:87–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Portnoy J, Pacheco F, Upadrasthta, Barnes C: A double monoclonal antibody assay for the Alternaria allergen GP70. Ann Allergy 1993, 71:401–407.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Vailes L, Sridhara S, Cromwell O, et al.: Quantitation of the major fungal allergens, Alt a 1 and Asp f 1, in commercial allergenic products. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001, 107:641–646.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Grier TJ, Hazelhurst DM, Duncan EA, et al.: Major allergen measurements: sources of variability, validation, quality assurance, and utility for laboratories, manufacturers, and clinics. Allergy Asthma Proc 2002, 23:125–131. This paper discusses the sources of variability and differences in major allergen concentrations reported by different testing laboratories.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Esch RE: Manufacturing and standardizing fungal allergen products. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004, 113:210–215. This paper discusses the difficulties associated with selecting reference standards and potency assay methods when significant qualitative differences exist among allergen vaccines.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. van Ree R, Dorpema JW, Veiths S: Allergy vaccines: a need for standardization in mass units of major allergen. Pharmeuropa Bio 2005, 1:27–30. This paper discusses the initiative in Europe to facilitate the development of international reference standards and standardization protocols for expressing vaccine potency by major allergen content.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Greer Laboratories, 639 Nuway Circle, 28645, Lenoir, NC, USA

    Robert E. Esch PhD

Authors
  1. Robert E. Esch PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. Esch PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Esch, R.E. Evaluation of allergen vaccine potency. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 6, 402–406 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-996-0013-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-996-0013-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation