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.
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 30â mg, 56 to benralizumab 60â 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 30â mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.01, 95% confidence interval -3.28 to 1.26; benralizumab 60â 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 30â mg vs. placebo, P = 0.4016; benralizumab 60â 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.
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.
