Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
N Engl J Med ; 390(24): 2252-2263, 2024 Jun 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38924732

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Esofagite Eosinofílica , Eosinófilos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Transtornos de Deglutição/etiologia , Transtornos de Deglutição/tratamento farmacológico , Método Duplo-Cego , Esofagite Eosinofílica/tratamento farmacológico , Esofagite Eosinofílica/imunologia , Subunidade alfa de Receptor de Interleucina-5/antagonistas & inibidores , Contagem de Leucócitos
2.
Immunotherapy ; 2024 May 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38695680

RESUMO

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic (long-lasting) skin disease that leads to dry, itchy, and swollen red spots, which can also be painful and flare up at any time. Some people with AD have a high number of eosinophils, a type of white blood cell, which are associated with worse disease. Medicated creams and lotions, prescribed by health care providers, are meant to reduce the symptoms of AD. For some people, these creams and lotions do not work. Benralizumab injection is a medication that reduces and removes eosinophils. A clinical trial called HILLER tested benralizumab to see if there was a difference in symptoms of AD after reducing or removing eosinophils. This article explains how benralizumab reduced eosinophils and the effect it had on AD symptoms in the HILLIER study. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Benralizumab reduced blood eosinophil numbers. However, benralizumab showed no evidence of treatment benefit on signs, symptoms, or severity of AD, as measured by three skin assessments compared with placebo. Benralizumab was well tolerated and had a safety profile that was consistent with previous studies. The five most commonly reported side effects were COVID-19 infection, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, swelling of the lymph nodes, and pink eye (conjunctivitis) in patients who received either benralizumab or placebo. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: Benralizumab lowered the number of blood eosinophils without improving AD symptoms and was well tolerated.

3.
Br J Dermatol ; 2024 Feb 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38367194

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a relatively common skin disease associated with hives and angio-oedema. Eosinophils play a role in CSU pathogenesis. Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, has been shown to induce nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with CSU who were symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment. METHODS: The 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b portion of the ARROYO trial enrolled adult patients with CSU who were currently on H1 antihistamine treatment. Patients were randomised to one of five treatment groups according to benralizumab dose and regimen for a 24-week treatment period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12. The key secondary endpoint was change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12. Additional secondary endpoints included other metrics to assess CSU at Week 24; blood eosinophil levels; and pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity assessments. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to explore responses according to demographics, clinical features and biomarkers. Safety was assessed in all treatment groups. RESULTS: Of 155 patients, 59 were randomised to benralizumab 30 mg, 56 to benralizumab 60 mg and 40 to placebo. Baseline and disease characteristics were consistent with what was expected for patients with CSU. There were no significant differences in change from baseline in ISS7 score at Week 12 between benralizumab and placebo (benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.01, 95% confidence interval -3.28 to 1.26; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.79, 95% confidence interval -4.09 to 0.50) nor in change from baseline in UAS7 score at Week 12 between benralizumab and placebo (benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.4016; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.0819). Depletion of blood eosinophil levels was observed at Week 24 in patients treated with benralizumab. All other secondary endpoints and exploratory/subgroup analyses indicated no significant differences between benralizumab and placebo. Safety results were consistent with the known profile of benralizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Although benralizumab resulted in near-complete depletion of blood eosinophils, there was no clinical benefit over placebo.

4.
Orphanet J Rare Dis ; 16(1): 495, 2021 11 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34819137

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument with evidence of validity and reliability for assessing symptoms of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is needed to measure treatment benefit in clinical trials. The aim of this research is to develop an EG/EGE symptom PRO instrument for patients aged 12 and above. METHODS: The Symptom Assessment for Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases (SAGED) was developed through a literature review, discussions with expert clinicians, and concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. Patients (n = 28) were recruited based on confirmed diagnosis and self-reported symptoms. The final instrument was translated and linguistically validated with additional cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 105). RESULTS: SAGED is a 24-h recall questionnaire consisting of eight items evaluating the core symptoms of EG and EGE (abdominal pain, nausea, bloating, early satiety, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhea). Seven of the eight items are evaluated on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 'none' to 'worst imaginable'. Cognitive debriefing interviews showed that adults and adolescents understand the content and are able to select a response that reflects their experience. The linguistic validation process produced 21 translations that are understandable to patients and conceptually equivalent to the source version. CONCLUSIONS: SAGED is suitable for measuring symptom improvement in adult and adolescent patients with EG and/or EGE. The content validity of SAGED has been established through best practices in qualitative research for PRO instrument development. The psychometric properties of SAGED will be evaluated in a future study.


Assuntos
Enterite , Gastrite , Inquéritos e Questionários/normas , Avaliação de Sintomas , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Enterite/diagnóstico , Enterite/tratamento farmacológico , Eosinofilia , Gastrite/diagnóstico , Gastrite/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Traduções
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA