Efficacy and safety of ligelizumab in adults and adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results of two phase 3 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies. METHODS: PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab. INTERPRETATION: In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma.

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.

A review of cannabis allergy in the early days of legalization.

Cannabis allergy is a burgeoning field; consequently, research is still in its infancy and allergists' knowledge surrounding this topic is limited. As cannabis legalization expands across the world, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in cannabis use. Thus, we hypothesize that a concomitant rise in the incidence of allergy to this plant can be expected. Initiatives aimed at properly educating health care professionals are therefore necessary. This review presents the most up-to-date information on a broad range of topics related to cannabis allergy. Although the clinical features of cannabis allergy are becoming more well described and recognized, the tools available to make a correct diagnosis are meager and often poorly accessible. In addition, research on cannabis allergy is still taking its first steps, and new and potentially groundbreaking findings in this field are expected to occur in the next few years. Finally, although therapeutic approaches are being developed, patient and physician education regarding cannabis allergy is certainly needed.

Ligelizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.

BACKGROUND: In the majority of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, most currently available therapies do not result in complete symptom control. Ligelizumab is a next-generation high-affinity humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody. Data are limited regarding the dose-response relationship of ligelizumab and the efficacy and safety of ligelizumab as compared with omalizumab and placebo in patients who have moderate-to-severe chronic spontaneous urticaria that is inadequately controlled with H1-antihistamines at approved or increased doses, alone or in combination with H2-antihistamines or leukotriene-receptor antagonists. METHODS: In a phase 2b dose-finding trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive ligelizumab at a dose of 24 mg, 72 mg, or 240 mg, omalizumab at a dose of 300 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for a period of 20 weeks, or a single 120-mg dose of ligelizumab. Disease symptoms of hives, itch, and angioedema were monitored by means of weekly activity scores. The main objective was to determine a dose-response relationship for the complete control of hives (indicated by a weekly hives-severity score of 0, on a scale from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater severity); the primary end point of this response was assessed at week 12. Complete symptom control was indicated by a weekly urticaria activity score of 0 (on a scale from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater severity). Safety was analyzed throughout the trial. RESULTS: A total of 382 patients underwent randomization. At week 12, a total of 30%, 51%, and 42% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of hives, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. A dose-response relationship was established. At week 12, a total of 30%, 44%, and 40% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of symptoms, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. In this small and short trial, no safety concerns regarding ligelizumab or omalizumab emerged. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of patients had complete control of symptoms of chronic spontaneous urticaria with ligelizumab therapy of 72 mg or 240 mg than with omalizumab or placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477332.).

Sustained safety and efficacy of ligelizumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A one-year extension study.

BACKGROUND: Ligelizumab, a next-generation, humanized anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody is in development as a treatment for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, whose symptoms are inadequately controlled with standard-of-care therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and re-treatment efficacy of ligelizumab 240 mg in patients who completed the core study and extension study. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, long-term Phase 2b extension study was designed to assess patients who were previously administered various doses of ligelizumab, omalizumab or placebo in the Phase 2b, dose-finding core study and who presented with active disease after Week 32. In the extension study, patients received ligelizumab 240 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks and were monitored post-treatment for 48 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, ligelizumab was well-tolerated with no newly identified safety signals. A total of 95.4% (226/237) screened patients received ligelizumab 240 mg in the extension study; 84.1% (190/226) of patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Most reported events were mild (41.6%) or moderate (35.8%) and mostly unrelated to the study treatment. At Week 12, 46.5% of patients had a complete response increasing to 53.1% after 52 weeks. Following 52 weeks of extension study treatment, 75.8% (95% confidence interval, 69.9, 81.3) of patients had cumulative complete responses. The median time to relapse in complete responders was 38 weeks. CONCLUSION: The long-term safety profile of ligelizumab 240 mg in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria was consistent with the core study and re-treatment efficacy was shown. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02477332 and NCT02649218.

Cannabis-related allergies: An international overview and consensus recommendations.

Cannabis is the most widely used recreational drug in the world. Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica have been selectively bred to develop their psychoactive properties. The increasing use in many countries has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Cannabis can provoke both type 1 and type 4 allergic reactions. Officially recognized allergens include a pathogenesis-related class 10 allergen, profilin, and a nonspecific lipid transfer protein. Other allergens may also be relevant, and recognition of allergens may vary between countries and continents. Cannabis also has the potential to provoke allergic cross-reactions to plant foods. Since cannabis is an illegal substance in many countries, research has been hampered, leading to challenges in diagnosis since no commercial extracts are available for testing. Even in countries such as Canada, where cannabis is legalized, diagnosis may rely solely on the purchase of cannabis for prick-to-prick skin tests. Management consists of avoidance, with legal issues hindering the development of other treatments such as immunotherapy. Education of healthcare professionals is similarly lacking. This review aimed to summarize the current status of cannabis allergy and proposes recommendations for the future management of this global issue.

AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we screened participants 4 to 55 years of age with peanut allergy for allergic dose-limiting symptoms at a challenge dose of 100 mg or less of peanut protein (approximately one third of a peanut kernel) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Participants with an allergic response were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive AR101 (a peanut-derived investigational biologic oral immunotherapy drug) or placebo in an escalating-dose program. Participants who completed the regimen (i.e., received 300 mg per day of the maintenance regimen for approximately 24 weeks) underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at trial exit. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants 4 to 17 years of age who could ingest a challenge dose of 600 mg or more, without dose-limiting symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 551 participants who received AR101 or placebo, 496 were 4 to 17 years of age; of these, 250 of 372 participants (67.2%) who received active treatment, as compared with 5 of 124 participants (4.0%) who received placebo, were able to ingest a dose of 600 mg or more of peanut protein, without dose-limiting symptoms, at the exit food challenge (difference, 63.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 53.0 to 73.3; P<0.001). During the exit food challenge, the maximum severity of symptoms was moderate in 25% of the participants in the active-drug group and 59% of those in the placebo group and severe in 5% and 11%, respectively. Adverse events during the intervention period affected more than 95% of the participants 4 to 17 years of age. A total of 34.7% of the participants in the active-drug group had mild events, as compared with 50.0% of those in the placebo group; 59.7% and 44.4% of the participants, respectively, had events that were graded as moderate, and 4.3% and 0.8%, respectively, had events that were graded as severe. Efficacy was not shown in the participants 18 years of age or older. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 3 trial of oral immunotherapy in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut, treatment with AR101 resulted in higher doses of peanut protein that could be ingested without dose-limiting symptoms and in lower symptom severity during peanut exposure at the exit food challenge than placebo. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; PALISADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02635776 .).

Long-term, open-label extension study of the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: PEOPLE 3-year results.

BACKGROUND: The PEPITES (Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety) trial, a 12-month randomized controlled study of children with peanut allergy and 4 to 11 years old, previously reported the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy (250 µg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 µg). OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess interim safety and efficacy of an additional 2 years of EPIT from the ongoing (5-year treatment) PEOPLE (PEPITES Open-Label Extension) study. METHODS: Subjects who completed PEPITES were offered enrollment in PEOPLE. Following an additional 2 years of daily DBV712 250 µg, subjects who had received DBV712 250 µg in PEPITES underwent month-36 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge with an optional month-38 sustained unresponsiveness assessment. RESULTS: Of 213 eligible subjects who had received DBV712 250 µg in PEPITES, 198 (93%) entered PEOPLE, of whom 141 (71%) had assessable double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at month 36. At month 36, 51.8% of subjects (73 of 141) reached an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg, compared with 40.4% (57 of 141) at month 12; 75.9% (107 of 141) demonstrated increased eliciting dose compared with baseline; and 13.5% (19 of 141) tolerated the full double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of 5444 mg. Median cumulative reactive dose increased from 144 to 944 mg. Eighteen subjects underwent an optional sustained unresponsiveness assessment; 14 of those (77.8%) maintained an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg at month 38. Local patch-site skin reactions were common but decreased over time. There was no treatment-related epinephrine use in years 2 or 3. Compliance was high (96.9%), and withdrawals due to treatment-related adverse events were low (1%). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that daily EPIT treatment for peanut allergy beyond 1 year leads to continued response from a well-tolerated, simple-to-use regimen.

Prevention of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks with a Subcutaneous C1 Inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema is a disabling, potentially fatal condition caused by deficiency (type I) or dysfunction (type II) of the C1 inhibitor protein. In a phase 2 trial, the use of CSL830, a nanofiltered C1 inhibitor preparation that is suitable for subcutaneous injection, resulted in functional levels of C1 inhibitor activity that would be expected to provide effective prophylaxis of attacks. METHODS: We conducted an international, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of self-administered subcutaneous CSL830 in patients with type I or type II hereditary angioedema who had had four or more attacks in a consecutive 2-month period within 3 months before screening. We randomly assigned the patients to one of four treatment sequences in a crossover design, each involving two 16-week treatment periods: either 40 IU or 60 IU of CSL830 per kilogram of body weight twice weekly followed by placebo, or vice versa. The primary efficacy end point was the number of attacks of angioedema. Secondary efficacy end points were the proportion of patients who had a response (≥50% reduction in the number of attacks with CSL830 as compared with placebo) and the number of times that rescue medication was used. RESULTS: Of the 90 patients who underwent randomization, 79 completed the trial. Both doses of CSL830, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of attacks of hereditary angioedema (mean difference with 40 IU, -2.42 attacks per month; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.38 to -1.46; and mean difference with 60 IU, -3.51 attacks per month; 95% CI, -4.21 to -2.81; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Response rates were 76% (95% CI, 62 to 87) in the 40-IU group and 90% (95% CI, 77 to 96) in the 60-IU group. The need for rescue medication was reduced from 5.55 uses per month in the placebo group to 1.13 uses per month in the 40-IU group and from 3.89 uses in the placebo group to 0.32 uses per month in the 60-IU group. Adverse events (most commonly mild and transient local site reactions) occurred in similar proportions of patients who received CSL830 and those who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hereditary angioedema, the prophylactic use of a subcutaneous C1 inhibitor twice weekly significantly reduced the frequency of acute attacks. (Funded by CSL Behring; COMPACT EudraCT number, 2013-000916-10 , and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01912456 .).

Multidisciplinary Real-World Experience With Bilastine, a Second Generation Antihistamine

Introduction: Allergic conditions frequently require treatment with antihistamines. First-generation antihistamines can potentially interfere with restful sleep, cause "morning after" effects, impair learning and memory, and reduce work efficiency. Second-generation antihistamines, such as bilastine, have been demonstrated to decrease allergy symptoms effectively without causing night-time sleep disturbances and related adverse events. Method: A real-world case project was developed to help optimize patient care by recognizing the role bilastine can play for allergic conditions where antihistamine treatment is needed. The presented real-world patient cases conducted by the panel members are supported with evidence from the literature, where available. Any discussion concerning off-label use should be considered an expert opinion only. Results: The real-world cases presented here used bilastine in conditions such as perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis, chronic urticaria, as well as urticarial vasculitis and pruritus associated with inflammatory skin conditions. The treated patients were between 9 and 76-years old providing information on a full spectrum of patients that require treatment with antihistamines. Conclusions: The presented real-world cases using the second-generation antihistamine, bilastine, demonstrated favorable outcomes for the treated patients. While effectively relieving symptoms, the antihistamine was reported to be safe and well-tolerated. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(2)145-154. doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.4835

Biomarkers and clinical characteristics of autoimmune chronic spontaneous urticaria: Results of the PURIST Study.

BACKGROUND: Autoimmune chronic spontaneous urticaria (aiCSU) is an important subtype of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in which functional IgG autoantibodies to IgE or its high-affinity receptor (FcεRI) induces mast cell degranulation and subsequent symptom development. However, it has not been tightly characterized. This study aimed to better define the clinical and immunological features and to explore potential biomarkers of aiCSU. METHODS: This was a multinational, multicenter study of 182 CSU patients. The clinical features studied included: urticaria activity and impact (UAS7 and quality of life); autologous serum skin test (ASST); IgG anti-FcεRI and IgG anti-IgE; IgG-anti-thyroperoxidase (IgG anti-TPO); total serum IgE; and basophil reactivity (BASO) using the basophil activation test (BAT) and basophil histamine release assay (BHRA). RESULTS: Of the 182 patients, 107 (59%) were ASST+, 46 (25%) were BASO+, and 105 (58%) were IgG anti-FcεRI+/IgE+. Fifteen patients (8%) fulfilled all three criteria of aiCSU. aiCSU patients appeared more severe (UAS7 21 vs 9 P < 0.016) but showed no other clinical or demographic differences from non-aiCSU patients. aiCSU patients also had markedly lower total IgE levels (P < 0.0001) and higher IgG anti-TPO levels (P < 0.001). Of biomarkers, positive BAT and BHRA tests were 69% and 88% predictive of aiCSU, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: aiCSU is a relatively small but immunologically distinct subtype of CSU that cannot be identified by routine clinical parameters. Inclusion of BHRA or BAT in the diagnostic workup of CSU patients may aid identification of aiCSU patients, who may have a different prognosis and benefit from specific management.

Effect of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Ingestion Among Children With Peanut Allergy: The PEPITES Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are currently no approved treatments for peanut allergy. Objective: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch among peanut-allergic children. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 31 sites in 5 countries between January 8, 2016, and August 18, 2017. Participants included peanut-allergic children (aged 4-11 years [n = 356] without a history of a severe anaphylactic reaction) developing objective symptoms during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein. Interventions: Daily treatment with peanut patch containing either 250 µg of peanut protein (n = 238) or placebo (n = 118) for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage difference in responders between the peanut patch and placebo patch based on eliciting dose (highest dose at which objective signs/symptoms of an immediate hypersensitivity reaction developed) determined by food challenges at baseline and month 12. Participants with baseline eliciting dose of 10 mg or less were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 300 mg or more; participants with baseline eliciting dose greater than 10 to 300 mg were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 1000 mg or more. A threshold of 15% or more on the lower bound of a 95% CI around responder rate difference was prespecified to determine a positive trial result. Adverse event evaluation included collection of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Among 356 participants randomized (median age, 7 years; 61.2% male), 89.9% completed the trial; the mean treatment adherence was 98.5%. The responder rate was 35.3% with peanut-patch treatment vs 13.6% with placebo (difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 12.4%-29.8%; P < .001]). The prespecified lower bound of the CI threshold was not met. TEAEs, primarily patch application site reactions, occurred in 95.4% and 89% of active and placebo groups, respectively. The all-causes rate of discontinuation was 10.5% in the peanut-patch group vs 9.3% in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among peanut-allergic children aged 4 to 11 years, the percentage difference in responders at 12 months with the 250-µg peanut-patch therapy vs placebo was 21.7% and was statistically significant, but did not meet the prespecified lower bound of the confidence interval criterion for a positive trial result. The clinical relevance of not meeting this lower bound of the confidence interval with respect to the treatment of peanut-allergic children with epicutaneous immunotherapy remains to be determined. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02636699.

SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet subgroup efficacy and local application site reaction duration.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) is common, necessitating evaluation of SQ house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet efficacy in various subgroups. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 12 SQ-HDM efficacy and safety across subgroups, and the onset, duration, and recurrence of local application site reactions. METHODS: Subgroup (age, sex, race, asthma status, and allergen sensitization) efficacy was assessed using pooled data from 2 previously described trials of daily 12 SQ-HDM vs placebo for AR/C (n = 2,138). Efficacy was measured by average total combined rhinitis score (TCRS; rhinitis daily symptom plus medication score) during the last 8 weeks of treatment. Safety in subgroups and local application site reaction onset, duration, and recurrence were evaluated using pooled data from 5 previously described trials of SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (n = 2,923). RESULTS: Significant (based on 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) reduction in TCRS was seen with 12 SQ-HDM relative to placebo across all subgroups, with TCRS improvements ranging from 15% to 25%. The AE profile was generally similar within subgroups. Approximately 95% of local application site reactions were mild to moderate in severity. Median duration on day 1 of treatment for the most common local application site reactions (throat irritation, oral pruritus, ear pruritus, and lip swelling) ranged from 30 to 60 minutes; median first day of onset ranged from days 1 to 4 of treatment; median days that reactions recurred ranged from 3 to 12 days. CONCLUSION: Treatment with 12 SQ-HDM consistently improved symptoms and was well tolerated in relevant subgroups of subjects with HDM AR/C. Local application site reactions to 12 SQ-HDM were typically mild to moderate and transient.

Approach to the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Document. Section III: Evaluation of Atopic Dermatitis Patients for Comorbidities.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is often associated with other atopic diseases, including asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopy-associated eye disorders, and eosinophilic esophagitis. Depression and anxiety are also comorbidities to AD that significantly affect quality of life and should be screened for in patients with AD. Links to other comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and malignancy are considered inconclusive, but patient counselling and screening may be appropriate in some patients. This article highlights practical recommendations for the recognition and management of atopic and nonatopic comorbidities commonly associated with AD.

A Treatment Algorithm for Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common and chronic inflammatory skin disease. Approximately 10% of adults with AD do not respond adequately to topical therapies and require phototherapy and/or systemic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To provide a patient-focused approach to the identification and management of adults with AD who require systemic treatment. METHODS: A working group of clinicians experienced in managing AD was convened to review and discuss current evidence on the identification and clinical management of adults with moderate to severe AD. RESULTS: We propose a set of simple and practical clinical criteria for selecting candidates for systemic treatment of AD based on their response to first-line topical therapy and 4 clinical measures that are easily incorporated into routine practice. We also suggest a framework for evaluating systemic treatments according to attributes that are important from both a clinician's and a patient's perspective. An algorithm was developed proposing a pathway for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults. CONCLUSION: Adults with moderate to severe AD that does not respond adequately to topical therapies currently have few safe and effective treatment options. A clinical algorithm could help guide treatment decisions.

Approach to the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Document.

BACKGROUND:: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing, and remitting inflammatory skin disease with complex pathophysiology, primarily driven by type 2 inflammation. Existing guidelines often do not reflect all current therapeutic options and guidance on the practical management of patients with AD is lacking. OBJECTIVES:: To develop practical, up-to-date guidance on the assessment and management of adult patients with AD. METHODS:: An expert panel of 17 Canadian experts, including 16 dermatologists and 1 allergist, with extensive clinical experience managing moderate-to-severe AD reviewed the available literature from the past 5 years using a defined list of key search terms. This literature, along with clinical expertise and opinion, was used to draft concise, clinically relevant reviews of the current literature. Based on these reviews, experts developed and voted on recommendations and statements to reflect the practical management of adult patients with AD as a guide for health care providers in Canada and across the globe, using a prespecified agreement cutoff of 75%. RESULTS:: Eleven consensus statements were approved by the expert panel and reflected 4 key domains: pathophysiology, assessment, comorbidities, and treatment. CONCLUSIONS:: These statements aim to provide a framework for the assessment and management of adult patients with AD and to guide health care providers in practically relevant aspects of patient management.

Approach to the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Document. Section V: Consensus Statements on the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.

This document is a concise, current, and practical guide for dermatologists and other health care providers managing adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The recommendations made here are based on a consensus of specialists with extensive experience managing patients with AD. Topics reviewed in this publication include AD pathophysiology, assessment, comorbidities, and treatment options.

Review of Systemic Treatment Options for Adult Atopic Dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin disease resulting from defects in skin barrier and aberrant immune responses. AD significantly affects the quality of life. Not all patients respond to topical therapies, and often systemic therapy is required to control the disease. OBJECTIVE: To review the treatment options for adult AD patients including those options for patients who do not respond adequately or have contraindications to oral systemic therapy. METHODS: A working group of clinicians with experience managing AD was convened to review the current literature on treatment options for adult AD patients. This review is based on the best available evidence from a published systematic review and an additional literature search. RESULTS: Current treatments for AD are reviewed, including options for adult AD patients who do not respond or have contraindications to current systemic therapies. A new approach with targeted therapies is reviewed based on best available evidence. CONCLUSION: Many AD patients respond satisfactorily to topical or systemic treatments, but for those patients who do not respond or have contraindications, new biologic agents appear to be promising therapies.

Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet in North American adolescents and adults in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (MK-8237; Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ/ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark) has demonstrated beneficial effects on allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma outcomes in European trials. OBJECTIVE: This is the first trial to assess the efficacy/safety of HDM SLIT-tablets in North American subjects with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C). METHODS: In this double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT01700192) 1482 subjects (aged ≥12 years) with HDM-induced AR/C with or without asthma were randomized to a daily SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-HDM dose) or placebo for up to approximately 52 weeks. A rhinitis daily symptom score (DSS; 4 nasal symptoms, maximum score = 12) of 6 or greater, or 5 or greater with 1 symptom being severe, on 5 of 7 consecutive days before randomization was required. The primary end point was the average total combined rhinitis score, which was defined as the rhinitis DSS plus rhinitis daily medication score (DMS), during the last 8 treatment weeks. RESULTS: Treatment with 12 SQ-HDM improved the total combined rhinitis score by 17% (95% CI, 10% to 25%) versus placebo. Improvements versus placebo in the secondary end points of average rhinitis DSS, rhinitis DMS, total combined rhinoconjunctivitis score, and visual analog scale-assessed AR/C symptoms were 16%, 18%, 17%, and 16%, respectively. All nominal P values were less than .001 versus placebo, except rhinitis DMS (P = 0.15). No treatment-related adverse events meeting the International Council on Harmonization definition of a serious adverse event were reported; 1 nonserious treatment-related systemic allergic reaction occurred (assessed as moderate intensity) at first administration under medical supervision and was treated with epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: In the first North American trial of use of a SLIT-tablet for HDM allergy, 12 SQ-HDM was well tolerated and improved HDM-induced rhinitis symptoms in adults and adolescents.

Effect of Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Exposure Among Patients With Peanut Sensitivity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Epicutaneous immunotherapy may have potential for treating peanut allergy but has been assessed only in preclinical and early human trials. Objective: To determine the optimal dose, adverse events (AEs), and efficacy of a peanut patch for peanut allergy treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of a peanut patch in peanut-allergic patients (6-55 years) from 22 centers, with a 2-year, open-label extension (July 31, 2012-July 31, 2014; extension completed September 29, 2016). Patients (n = 221) had peanut sensitivity and positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein. Interventions: Randomly assigned patients (1:1:1:1) received an epicutaneous peanut patch containing 50 µg (n = 53), 100 µg (n = 56), or 250 µg (n = 56) of peanut protein or a placebo patch (n = 56). Following daily patch application for 12 months, patients underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge to establish changes in eliciting dose. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was percentage of treatment responders (eliciting dose: ≥10-times increase and/or reaching ≥1000 mg of peanut protein) in each group vs placebo patch after 12 months. Secondary end points included percentage of responders by age strata and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Of 221 patients randomized (median age, 11 years [quartile 1, quartile 3: 8, 16]; 37.6% female), 93.7% completed the trial. A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at month 12 between the 250-µg (n = 28; 50.0%) and placebo (n = 14; 25.0%) patches (difference, 25.0%; 95% CI, 7.7%-42.3%; P = .01). No significant difference was seen between the placebo patch vs the 100-µg patch. Because of statistical testing hierarchical rules, the 50-µg patch was not compared with placebo. Interaction by age group was only significant for the 250-µg patch (P = .04). In the 6- to 11-year stratum, the response rate difference between the 250-µg (n = 15; 53.6%) and placebo (n = 6; 19.4%) patches was 34.2% (95% CI, 11.1%-57.3%; P = .008); adolescents/adults showed no difference between the 250-µg (n = 13; 46.4%) and placebo (n = 8; 32.0%) patches: 14.4% (95% CI, -11.6% to 40.4%; P = .40). No dose-related serious AEs were observed. The percentage of patients with 1 or more TEAEs (largely local skin reactions) was similar across all groups in year 1: 50-µg patch = 100%, 100-µg patch = 98.2%, 250-µg patch = 100%, and placebo patch = 92.9%. The overall median adherence was 97.6% after 1 year; the dropout rate for treatment-related AEs was 0.9%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this dose-ranging trial of peanut-allergic patients, the 250-µg peanut patch resulted in significant treatment response vs placebo patch following 12 months of therapy. These findings warrant a phase 3 trial. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01675882.