The real life experience goes on: update after 4 years on the first cohort treated with lanadelumab at our center.

Introduction: Lanadelumab is a first-line long-term prophylaxis (LTP) in hereditary angioedema (HAE). Real-life data on its long-term efficacy and safety are limited. It is unknown whether patients using lanadelumab need short-term prophylaxis (STP). Objectives: To provide 4-year follow-up data for our first 34 patients treating with lanadelumab. Methods: Patients were assessed for their current injection interval, attacks, treatment satisfaction, disease control (AECT), quality of life impairment (AE-QoL), events that can induce attacks, and the use of STP since the start of their treatment with lanadelumab. Results: Of 34 patients who started lanadelumab treatment, 32 were still using it after 4 years, with a median injection interval of 33 (range 14-90) days. HAE patients (n=28) reported longer intervals, i.e. 35 (14-90) days, than patients with angioedema due to acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency (n=4, 23 (14-31) days). With their current injection intervals, used for a mean duration of 29 ± 17 months, patients reported a yearly attack rate of 0.3 ± 0.1. More than 70% of patients were attack-free since starting their current injection interval. All patients reported well-controlled disease, i.e. ≥10 points in the AECT; 21 patients had complete control (16 points). AE-QoL scores improved further compared to our initial report, most prominently in the fears/shame domain (-6 points). Treatment satisfaction was very high. No angioedema occurred after 146 of 147 potentially attack-inducing medical procedures without STP. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the long-term efficacy and safety of lanadelumab in real-life and question the need for STP in patients who use effective LTP.

Garadacimab for hereditary angioedema attack prevention: long-term efficacy, quality of life, and safety data from a phase 2, randomised, open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: Garadacimab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody targeting activated factor XII. This study evaluated long-term efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety data for garadacimab in adults with hereditary angioedema. METHODS: This global phase 2 study comprised a treatment period 1 (TP1: 12 weeks, double-blind, placebo-controlled) and a treatment period 2 (TP2: ≥44-week open-label extension). Patients aged 18-65 years with clinically confirmed hereditary angioedema were eligible. In TP1, 32 patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous garadacimab (75 mg, 200 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks (once monthly). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology via block randomisation (block sizes 1-4). Subsequently, six additional patients in TP1 were assigned to open-label garadacimab 400 mg every 2 weeks. At the start of TP2, patients were re-randomised (if receiving placebo, garadacimab 75 mg, or garadacimab 400 mg) or continued to receive garadacimab 200 mg or garadacimab 600 mg once monthly. After a protocol amendment on March 20, 2020, patients originally assigned to the 600 mg dose were down-titrated to 200 mg at their next visit. The primary endpoint (published previously) was monthly attack rate for patients receiving 200 mg or 600 mg garadacimab in TP1 in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we assessed the impact of garadacimab on patient-reported and investigator-reported outcomes and HRQoL as well as long-term efficacy and safety. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03712228, and is completed. FINDINGS: Of 54 patients screened between Oct 29, 2018, and Aug 28, 2019, 32 randomised and six open-label patients completed TP1 and entered TP2 (20 in the garadacimab 200 mg group; 18 in the garadacimab 600 mg group; total 38 patients). Median age was 39·0 years (IQR 27·0-53·0), and 21 patients (55%) were female and 17 (45%) were male. In TP2, the median garadacimab exposure was 87·9 weeks (IQR 50·0-106·6) in the garadacimab 200 mg group and 44·1 weeks (24·1-56·1) in the garadacimab 600 mg group. Median monthly attack rates were 0·0 (IQR 0·0-0·1) in the garadacimab 200 mg group and 0·1 (0·0-0·4) in the garadacimb 600 mg group. Median reduction in monthly attack rate versus run-in was 100% (IQR 98-100) with garadacimab 200 mg. HRQoL improvements observed during TP1 with garadacimab were sustained throughout TP2. TP2 safety signals were consistent with TP1. Two patients experienced serious adverse events of diverticular perforation and asthma (not garadacimab-related). Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity. The most common adverse events were headache (nine of 38, 24%) and abdominal pain (seven of 38, 18%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Once-monthly garadacimab for more than 2 years in patients with hereditary angioedema was well tolerated and efficacious in reducing monthly attack rate and improving HRQoL. These results reveal the potential of long-term prophylactic treatment with 200 mg once-monthly garadacimab towards complete disease control of patients with hereditary angioedema. FUNDING: CSL Behring.

A Core Outcome Set for Efficacy of Acute Treatment of Hereditary Angioedema.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials investigating drugs for the acute treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks have assessed many different outcomes. This heterogeneity limits the comparability of trial results and may lead to selective outcome reporting bias and a high burden on trial participants. OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus on a core outcome set composed of key outcomes that ideally should be used in all clinical efficacy trials involving the acute treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi consensus study involving all relevant parties: patients with hereditary angioedema, hereditary angioedema expert clinicians and clinical researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory bodies. Two Internet-based survey rounds were conducted. In round 1, panelists indicated the importance of individual outcomes used in clinical trials on a 9-point Likert scale. Based on these results, a core outcome set was developed and voted on by panelists in round 2. RESULTS: A total of 58 worldwide panelists completed both rounds. The first round demonstrated high importance scores and substantial agreement among the panelists. In the second round, a consensus of 90% or greater was achieved on a core outcome set consisting of five key outcomes: change in overall symptom severity at one predetermined time point between 15 minutes and 4 hours after treatment, time to end of progression of all symptoms, the need for rescue medication during the entire attack, impairment of daily activities, and treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This international study obtained a high level of consensus on a core outcome set for the acute treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks, consisting of five key outcomes.

[What are the main symptoms of urticaria and how are they systematically recorded?] / Was sind Leitsymptome bei Urtikaria, und wie werden sie systematisch erfasst?

Wheals or angioedema or both are the main symptoms of urticaria. The small number of the symptoms usually makes diagnosis easy. What is not trivial, however, is the comprehensive systematic recording and assessment of these symptoms and, above all, their sequelae, which affect many areas of the patient's life. Disease activity, quality of life and disease control can and should be measured before and during treatment in order to optimally adapt therapeutic measures. The instruments developed for this purpose have become easier and more convenient to use in recent years thanks to user-friendly platforms such as mobile health apps.

CRUSE® -An innovative mobile application for patient monitoring and management in chronic spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is unpredictable and can severely impair patients' quality of life. Patients with CSU need a convenient, user-friendly platform to complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on their mobile devices. CRUSE® , the Chronic Urticaria Self Evaluation app, aims to address this unmet need. METHODS: CRUSE® was developed by an international steering committee of urticaria specialists. Priorities for the app based on recent findings in CSU were defined to allow patients to track and record their symptoms and medication use over time and send photographs. The CRUSE® app collects patient data such as age, sex, disease onset, triggers, medication, and CSU characteristics that can be sent securely to physicians, providing real-time insights. Additionally, CRUSE® contains PROMs to assess disease activity and control, which are individualised to patient profiles and clinical manifestations. RESULTS: CRUSE® was launched in Germany in March 2022 and is now available for free in 17 countries. It is adapted to the local language and displays a country-specific list of available urticaria medications. English and Ukrainian versions are available worldwide. From July 2022 to June 2023, 25,710 observations were documented by 2540 users; 72.7% were females, with a mean age of 39.6 years. At baseline, 93.7% and 51.3% of users had wheals and angioedema, respectively. Second-generation antihistamines were used in 74.0% of days. CONCLUSIONS: The initial data from CRUSE® show the wide use and utility of effectively tracking patients' disease activity and control, paving the way for personalised CSU management.

Patient-level indirect treatment comparison of lanadelumab versus pdC1-INH i.v. in hereditary angioedema patients: PATCH study.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is an autosomal dominant inherited disease in which patients suffer from local attacks primarily affecting skin and gastrointestinal tract, and sometimes even the upper respiratory tract leading to asphyxiation. Since head-to-head trials between authorized treatments are lacking, this study compares efficacy and safety of lanadelumab and intravenous plasma-derived C1-esterase inhibitor (pdC1-INH i.v.) in HAE patients on long-term prophylaxis by means of an indirect treatment comparison. METHODS: Efficacy and safety of lanadelumab against pdC1-INH i.v. were analyzed in a fully prespecified indirect comparison based on individual patient data (n = 231) from the HELP and CHANGE clinical trials. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were compared using a generalized linear model for count data. Confounding variables were identified a priori via systematic literature research and validated by clinical experts. Adjustment of confounders was implemented using a conditional regression model. RESULTS: Lanadelumab showed a statistically significant improvement in reduction of HAE attack rates compared to pdC1-INH i.v. across multiple endpoints: Monthly attack rate of patients treated with lanadelumab was less than half compared to pdC1-INH i.v. (Rate ratio: 0.486; 95% CI: 0.253, 0.932). Monthly rate of laryngeal attacks was found to be five times lower for lanadelumab (Rate ratio: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.044, 0.915) and monthly rate of acute treated HAE attacks among lanadelumab patients was about one third of the attack rate of pdC1-INH i.v. patients (Rate ratio: 0.366; 95% CI: 0.185, 0.727). CONCLUSION: This study contributes to current knowledge in the treatment of HAE by indicating a statistically significant reduction of HAE attacks under lanadelumab compared to pdC1-INH i.v.

CRUSE - What the first 100 days have taught us.

Introduction: Health apps play an increasing role in everyday healthcare, especially for chronic diseases. The Chronic Urticaria Self Evaluation (CRUSE) is a new mobile health app for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) patients, which replaces disease tracking via paper and pen, thus making disease monitoring more convenient, increasing tracking compliance, and improving data quality and access. Methods: CRUSE enables patients to complete patient-reported outcome measures on their smartphone and send the results, along with current medication and pictures, to their treating physician via email. CRUSE captures the urticaria (UAS) and angioedema activity (AAS) scores and the urticaria and angioedema control tests (UCT and AECT). In this work, a descriptive analysis of CRUSE users and reported days was performed. The global network of Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) provides the app and its data. Results: CRUSE is now available in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the UK, Italy, Spain, France, and Turkey. Of 620 newly registered users (from July 1st until November 18th of 2022), 72 % were female, and the mean age was 36.6 years (17 - 78 years). The average daily UAS and AAS value (mean ± standard deviation) were 2.1 ± 1.9 and 7.2 ± 3.3, respectively. Most CRUSE patients had poorly controlled disease, with mean UCT values of 7.0 ± 4.4 and mean AECT values of 8.1 ± 4.5. Conclusion: The first days of patients with CSU using CRUSE confirm the high need for an app that helps to monitor disease activity, impact, and control. The first results indicate low levels of disease control in most CRUSE users, with low UCT and AECT values. Future analyses will assess follow-up documentation data and evaluate the effects of treatment changes on CSU activity, impact, and control.

Patient-physician interactions in hereditary angioedema-Key learnings from the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease pandemic and its containing measures have caused concerns for patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) and their treating physicians. Both faced challenges surrounding interaction, and communication had to adapt to facilitate appropriate management. Specifically, the pandemic resulted in reduced in-person contact in clinics. Where possible, telemedicine appointments were offered and treatment outside the hospital setting was encouraged. BODY: The pandemic markedly affected patient-physician communication, which is essential to maintain partnerships and optimize care. Although patients with HAE are often experts in their condition, guidance by their physicians is essential, especially with the recent shift toward patient-centered management for rare diseases and shared decision-making (SDM). SDM enables patients to take control of their disease and allows the risks and benefits of treatment to be discussed with their physicians. This review explores perspectives from patients and physicians in the HAE clinical setting, particularly regarding their experiences with communication throughout the pandemic. We discuss the importance of SDM in rare diseases such as HAE, factors that impact effective communication, and potential solutions. CONCLUSION: Since patient-centered care and SDM have particular relevance in rare diseases in general, we believe our findings could be transferrable and applicable in the management of other rare diseases.

Could it be hereditary angioedema?-Perspectives from different medical specialties.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare autosomal dominant disease, with patients often suffering with associated symptoms for many years before receiving a correct diagnosis. The symptoms greatly impact a patient's quality of life (QoL) and include excruciating abdominal pain and angioedema of the skin and submucosa. Angioedema of the larynx represents a significant mortality risk in undiagnosed patients, and a large proportion of patients with HAE receive incorrect diagnoses and undergo unnecessary surgery. HAE-specific treatments can control and prevent acute life-threatening episodes, in addition to improving QoL, emphasizing the value of early diagnosis for patients. Diagnostic delay may be due to a lack of HAE awareness by healthcare professionals and the similarity of HAE symptoms with those of more common conditions, complicating differential diagnosis. The multifaceted nature of the condition may result in visits to one of many different medical settings, for example: the Emergency Room, pediatrics, general practice, otolaryngology, gastroenterology, and dermatology. Therefore, it is crucial that physicians in multiple healthcare specialties are aware of the disease to ensure that patients with HAE receive a timely diagnosis. Using patient cases from various medical specialties, this review highlights the necessity for cross-specialty awareness of HAE and outlines the essential information for the various healthcare professionals that may encounter a patient with HAE symptoms, in order to effectively treat and/or diagnose HAE.

Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the angioedema control test.

BACKGROUND: The Angioedema Control Test (AECT) is a patient-reported outcome measure developed and validated for the assessment of disease control in patients with recurrent angioedema. Its sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) have hitherto not been established. METHODS: Patients with recurrent angioedema due to chronic spontaneous urticaria, hereditary angioedema, or acquired C1-inhibitor deficiency were repeatedly asked to complete the AECT along with the Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE-QoL), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and anchors for disease control and whether treatment was sufficient during routine care visits. The sensitivity to the change of the AECT was determined by correlating changes in its scores over time with changes in the applied anchors. The MCID was determined using anchor-based and distributional criterion-based approaches. RESULTS: Eighty-six cases were used for this analysis. Changes in AECT scores correlated well with AE-QoL changes (but less with changes in the DLQI) as well as other applied anchors, demonstrating its sensitivity to change. The MCID was found to be three points for improvement of angioedema control. The available number of cases with meaningful deterioration in our dataset was too low to reach a definite conclusion on the MCID for deterioration of angioedema control. CONCLUSION: The AECT is a valuable tool to assess changes in disease control in patients with recurrent angioedema over time. The lowest AECT score change that reflects a meaningful improvement of disease control to patients (MCID) is three points.

Patients With Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Who Have Wheals, Angioedema, or Both, Differ Demographically, Clinically, and in Response to Treatment-Results From CURE.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have spontaneous wheals (W), angioedema (AE), or both, for longer than 6 weeks. Clinical differences between patients with standalone W, standalone AE, and W and AE (W+AE) remain incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare W, AE, and W+AE CSU patients regarding demographics, disease characteristics, comorbidities, disease burden, and treatment response. METHODS: Baseline data from 3,698 CSU patients in the ongoing, prospective, international, multicenter, observational Chronic Urticaria REgistry (CURE) were analyzed (data cut: September 2022). RESULTS: Across all CSU patients, 59%, 36%, and 5% had W+AE, W, and AE, respectively. The W+AE patients, compared with W and AE patients, showed the lowest male-to-female ratio (0.33), higher rates of concomitant psychiatric disease (17% vs 11% vs 6%, respectively), autoimmune disease (13% vs 7% vs 9%, respectively), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity (9% vs 5% vs 2%, respectively) and the highest disease impact. The W patients, compared with W+AE and AE patients, showed the lowest rates of concomitant hypertension (15% vs 21% vs 40%, respectively) and obesity (11% vs 16% vs 17%, respectively), the highest rate of concomitant inducible urticaria (24% vs 22% vs 6%, respectively), and shorter W duration. The AE patients, compared with W+AE and W patients, were older at disease onset, showed longer AE duration, and the best response to increased doses of H1-antihistamines (58% vs 24% vs 31%, respectively) and omalizumab (92% vs 67% vs 60%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a better understanding of CSU phenotypes and may guide patient care and research efforts that aim to link them to pathogenic drivers.

A multicenter chart review of patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in hereditary angioedema: unmet need for more effective long-term prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease characterized by unpredictable, recurring subcutaneous or submucosal swelling. Without effective therapy, HAE can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Management of HAE includes on-demand treatment of attacks and short- and long-term prophylaxis (LTP) to prevent attacks. Newer therapies may be more tolerable and effective in managing HAE; however, therapies such as androgens are still widely used in some countries owing to their relative ease of access and adequate disease control for some patients. This study evaluated the characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization of a multinational cohort of patients with HAE, with a focus on understanding reasons for recommending or discontinuing available therapies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted at 12 centers in six countries and included data from patients with HAE type 1 or 2 who were ≥ 12 years of age at their first clinical visit. The relationship between LTP use and attack rates was evaluated using a multivariable Poisson regression model. Data were collected between March 2018 and July 2019. RESULTS: Data from 225 patients were collected (62.7% female, 86.2% White, 90.2% type 1); 64.4% of patients had their first HAE-related visit to the center prior to or during 2014. Treatment patterns varied between countries. Overall, 85.8% of patients were prescribed on-demand treatment and 53.8% were prescribed LTP, most commonly the androgen danazol (53.7% of patients who used LTP). Plasma-derived C1 inhibitor (Cinryze®) was used by 29.8% of patients for LTP. Patients who received LTP had a significantly lower rate of HAE attacks than patients who did not receive any LTP (incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.90 (0.84-0.96)). Androgens were the most commonly discontinued therapy (51.3%), with low tolerability cited as the most frequent reason for discontinuation (50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings from this study support the use of LTP in the prevention of HAE attacks; a lower rate of attacks was observed with LTP compared with no LTP. However, the type of LTP used varied between countries, with tolerability and accessibility to specific treatments playing important roles in management decision-making.

Hereditary Angioedema: A Review of the Current and Evolving Treatment Landscape.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease characterized by sudden and often unprovoked episodes of swelling that can be potentially life-threatening when it involves the upper airway. The treatment options for both acute episodes of HAE and LTP, used to minimize the frequency and severity of angioedema attacks, were limited historically to very few options, had considerable side effects, and/or had considerable burden of treatment. Fortunately, through the elucidation of the pathophysiology of HAE, the development of newer targeted therapies has been possible both for acute therapy and long-term prophylaxis and even more are on the horizon. Because of the rapid development of these therapies, it can be challenging for clinicians to keep abreast of newer and developing treatments for HAE. This review article will outline the current and potential future treatments for HAE. It will also highlight important considerations when treating special HAE patient populations including women and pediatric patients.

Efficacy and safety of garadacimab, a factor XIIa inhibitor for hereditary angioedema prevention (VANGUARD): a global, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema is a rare and potentially life-threatening genetic disease that is associated with kallikrein-kinin system dysregulation. Garadacimab (CSL312), a novel, fully-human monoclonal antibody that inhibits activated factor XII (FXIIa), is being studied for the prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-monthly subcutaneous administrations of garadacimab as prophylaxis for hereditary angioedema. METHODS: VANGUARD was a pivotal, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that recruited patients (aged ≥12 years) with type I or type II hereditary angioedema across seven countries (Canada, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, and the USA). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (3:2) to receive garadacimab or placebo for 6 months (182 days) by an interactive response technology (IRT) system. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤17 years vs >17 years) and baseline attack rate (1 to <3 attacks per month vs ≥3 attacks per month) for the adult group. The randomisation list and code were kept by the IRT provider during the study, with no access by site staff and funding representatives. All patients and investigational site staff, and representatives from the funder (or their delegates) with direct interaction with the study sites or patients, were masked to treatment assignment in a double-blind fashion. Randomly assigned patients received a 400-mg loading dose of subcutaneous garadacimab as two 200-mg injections or volume-matched placebo on day 1 of the treatment period, followed by five additional self-administered (or caregiver-administered) monthly doses of 200-mg subcutaneous garadacimab or volume-matched placebo. The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed time-normalised number of hereditary angioedema attacks (number of hereditary angioedema attacks per month) during the 6-month treatment period (day 1 to day 182). Safety was evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of garadacimab or placebo. The study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2020-000570-25 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04656418. FINDINGS: Between Jan 27, 2021, and June 7, 2022, we screened 80 patients, 76 of whom were eligible to enter the run-in period of the study. Of 65 eligible patients with type I or type II hereditary angioedema, 39 were randomly assigned to garadacimab and 26 to placebo. One patient was randomly assigned in error and did not enter the treatment period (no dose of study drug received), resulting in 39 patients assigned to garadacimab and 25 patients assigned to placebo being included. 38 (59%) of 64 participants were female and 26 (41%) were male. 55 (86%) of 64 participants were White, six (9%) were Asian (Japanese), one (2%) was Black or African American, one (2%) was Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and one (2%) was listed as other. During the 6-month treatment period (day 1 to day 182), the mean number of investigator-confirmed hereditary angioedema attacks per month was significantly lower in the garadacimab group (0·27, 95% CI 0·05 to 0·49) than in the placebo group (2·01, 1·44 to 2·57; p<0·0001), corresponding to a percentage difference in means of -87% (95% CI -96 to -58; p<0·0001). The median number of hereditary angioedema attacks per month was 0 (IQR 0·00-0·31) for garadacimab and 1·35 (1·00-3·20) for placebo. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were upper-respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headaches. FXIIa inhibition was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding or thromboembolic events. INTERPRETATION: Monthly garadacimab administration significantly reduced hereditary angioedema attacks in patients aged 12 years and older compared with placebo and had a favourable safety profile. Our results support the use of garadacimab as a potential prophylactic therapy for the treatment of hereditary angioedema in adolescents and adults. FUNDING: CSL Behring.

An investigational oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor for on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema: a two-part, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend effective on-demand therapy for all individuals with hereditary angioedema. We aimed to assess the novel oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor, sebetralstat, which is in development, for on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks. METHODS: In this two-part phase 2 trial, individuals with type 1 or 2 hereditary angioedema aged 18 years or older were recruited from 25 sites, consisting of specialty outpatient centres, across nine countries in Europe and the USA. Individuals were eligible if they had experienced at least three hereditary angioedema attacks in the past 93 days, were not on prophylactic therapy, and had access to and the ability to self-administer conventional attack treatment. In part 1 of the trial, participants were given a single 600 mg open-label oral dose of sebetralstat to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the dose. Part 2 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-sequence, two-period (2 × 2) crossover trial; participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either sequence 1, in which they were given a single dose of 600 mg of sebetralstat to treat the first eligible attack and a second dose of placebo to treat the second eligible attack, or sequence 2, in which they were given placebo to treat the first eligible attack and then 600 mg of sebetralstat to treat the second eligible attack. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was time to use of conventional attack treatment within 12 h of study drug administration, which was assessed in all participants who were randomly assigned to treatment and who received study drug for two attacks during part 2 of the study. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug, starting in part 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04208412, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 2, 2019, and Dec 8, 2020, 84 individuals were screened and 68 were enrolled in part 1 and received sebetralstat (mean age 38·3 years [SD 13·2], 37 [54%] were female, 31 [46%] were male, 68 [100%] were White). 42 (62%) of 68 participants completed pharmacokinetic assessments. Sebetralstat was rapidly absorbed, with a geometric mean plasma concentration of 501 ng/mL at 15 min. In a subset of participants (n=6), plasma samples obtained from 15 min to 4 h after study drug administration had near-complete protection from ex vivo stimulated generation of plasma kallikrein and cleavage of high-molecular-weight kininogen. In part 2, all 68 participants were randomly assigned to sequence 1 (n=34) or sequence 2 (n=34). 53 (78%) of 68 participants treated two attacks (25 [74%] in the sequence 1 group and 28 [82%] in the sequence 2 group). Time to use of conventional treatment within 12 h of study drug administration was significantly longer with sebetralstat versus placebo (at quartile 1: >12 h [95% CI 9·6 to >12] vs 8·0 h [3·8 to >12]; p=0·0010). There were no serious adverse events or adverse event-related discontinuations. INTERPRETATION: Oral administration of sebetralstat was well tolerated and led to rapid suppression of plasma kallikrein activity, resulting in increased time to use of conventional attack treatment and faster symptom relief versus placebo. Based on these results, a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dose levels of sebetralstat in adolescent and adult participants with hereditary angioedema has been initiated (NCT05259917). FUNDING: KalVista Pharmaceuticals.

The current situation of hereditary angioedema patients in Germany: results of an online survey.

Introduction: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare hereditary disease with an estimated prevalence of approximately 1 in 50,000. Methods: An online survey was performed between January and June 2021 on a total of 99 HAE patients (with 92 of them aged 15 years and older and 7 of them being parents of patients under the age of 15 years). They were asked about their current situation, with a focus on the disease. Results: The survey results show that HAE has a strong influence on the patients' quality of life. In particular, the anxiety and uncertainty of not knowing when a swelling attack will occur is considered burdensome by the patients. In addition, there can be physical problems during an attack (depending on its severity) that severely burden and limit patients in their everyday lives. Only one-third of the patients surveyed stated that no or only very minor physical limitations occurred during their most recent swelling attack. Almost three-quarters of all patients receive regular treatment at an HAE center. The patients are mostly satisfied with the therapy and particularly with long-term prophylactics (LTPs). When an LTP was used, the frequency and severity of the swelling attacks, and their duration, were significantly lower and/or shorter than when no LTP was used. Discussion: Despite the high level of satisfaction with their current medication, 62% of patients expressed a strong/very strong interest in an oral LTP. In the group of patients already using an LTP, 74% reported a strong/very strong interest in an oral medication for long-term prophylaxis. The simplicity and minimal time involved in LTP use are considered beneficial to patients' quality of life.

Case report: Recurrent angioedema: Diagnosing the rare and the frequent.

Hereditary angiodema with normal C1 inhibitor and unknown mutation (HAE-nC1INH-UNK), an exceedingly rare subtype of HAE, appears to be often diagnosed in patients who do not have this condition, but have mast cell-mediated angioedema. Here, we report two patients diagnosed with HAE-nC1INH-UNK by their physicians, who referred them to our center for treatment continuation with costly kallikrein-kinin-system targeted therapies. We describe how we established the correct diagnosis of recurrent mast cell-mediated angioedema after thorough investigation of both patients and initiated effective treatment with omalizumab. Also, we present and discuss the consensus criteria for diagnosing the very rare condition HAE-nC1INH in light of recent research and based on our own clinical experience. In conclusion, HAE-nC1INH-UNK should only be considered after more common differential diagnoses, i.e., mast cell-mediated angioedema, have thoroughly been investigated and ruled out. This approach reduces both the patients' disease burden and healthcare costs and contributes to meaningful research.

Patients with hereditary angioedema and their treatment patterns in Germany: a Delphi consensus study

Background: Little is known about how many patients with hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (HAE-C1-INH) receive on-demand and/or prophylactic treatment and what their clinical features are. Here, we estimated, using Delphi-based consensus, prevalence and treatment patterns in Germany as well as patient features linked to long-term prophylaxis. Materials & Methods: Eight experts, who together treat approximately 75% of all German HAE-C1-INH patients, participated in a classic, two-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement between at least 75% of participants. Results: Experts agreed that an estimated 1,350 patients in Germany have HAE-C1-INH, i.e. 1.62 per 100,000. One in four patients was estimated to receive long-term prophylaxis. Patient features linked to the use of prophylactic treatment included reduced quality of life, frequent swellings and swellings that affect the upper airways, and >two attacks per month. Conclusion: The rate of prophylactic treatment in Germany is low, but is expected to increase. The level of disease activity and its impact and control are and should be considered in the choice for prophylactic treatment.