Dupilumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Patients 1 to 11 Years of Age.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 pathways and has shown efficacy in five different atopic diseases marked by type 2 inflammation, including eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and adolescents. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:2:1:1 ratio, patients 1 to 11 years of age with active eosinophilic esophagitis who had had no response to proton-pump inhibitors to 16 weeks of a higher-exposure or lower-exposure subcutaneous dupilumab regimen or to placebo (two groups) (Part A). At the end of Part A, eligible patients in each dupilumab group continued the same regimen and those in the placebo groups were assigned to higher-exposure or lower-exposure dupilumab for 36 weeks (Part B). At each level of exposure, dupilumab was administered in one of four doses tiered according to baseline body weight. The primary end point was histologic remission (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count, ≤6 per high-power field) at week 16. Key secondary end points were tested hierarchically. RESULTS: In Part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of the 37 patients (68%) in the higher-exposure group, in 18 of the 31 patients (58%) in the lower-exposure group, and in 1 of the 34 patients (3%) in the placebo group (difference between the higher-exposure regimen and placebo, 65 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, 48 to 81; P<0.001]; difference between the lower-exposure regimen and placebo, 55 percentage points [95% CI, 37 to 73; P<0.001]). The higher-exposure dupilumab regimen led to significant improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures as compared with placebo. The improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures between baseline and week 52 in all the patients were generally similar to the improvements between baseline and week 16 in the patients who received dupilumab in Part A. In Part A, the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019, nausea, injection-site pain, and headache was at least 10 percentage points higher among the patients who received dupilumab (at either dose) than among those who received placebo. Serious adverse events were reported in 3 patients who received dupilumab during Part A and in 6 patients overall during Part B. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab resulted in histologic remission in a significantly higher percentage of children with eosinophilic esophagitis than placebo. The higher-exposure dupilumab regimen also led to improvements in measures of key secondary end points as compared with placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; EoE KIDS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04394351.).

Efficacy and Safety of Itepekimab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, interleukin-4 and -13, and interleukin-5 are effective in treating severe type 2 asthma, but new targets are needed. Itepekimab is a new monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33. The efficacy and safety of itepekimab as monotherapy, as well as in combination with dupilumab, in patients with asthma are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, adults with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (at a dose of 300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. After randomization, LABA was discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary end point was an event indicating a loss of asthma control, assessed in the itepekimab group and the combination group, as compared with the placebo group. Secondary and other end points included lung function, asthma control, quality of life, type 2 biomarkers, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients underwent randomization. By 12 weeks, an event indicating a loss of asthma control occurred in 22% of the patients in the itepekimab group, 27% of those in the combination group, and 19% of those in the dupilumab group, as compared with 41% of those in the placebo group; the corresponding odds ratios as compared with placebo were as follows: in the itepekimab group, 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.88; P = 0.02); in the combination group, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.26 to 1.06; P = 0.07); and in the dupilumab group, 0.33 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70). As compared with placebo, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second before bronchodilator use increased with the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapies but not with the combination therapy. Itepekimab treatment improved asthma control and quality of life, as compared with placebo, and led to a greater reduction in the mean blood eosinophil count. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all four trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Interleukin-33 blockade with itepekimab led to a lower incidence of events indicating a loss of asthma control than placebo and improved lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03387852.).

Dupilumab Efficacy and Safety in Moderate-to-Severe Uncontrolled Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a fully human anti-interleukin-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody that blocks both interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling. We assessed its efficacy and safety in patients with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1902 patients 12 years of age or older with uncontrolled asthma in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive add-on subcutaneous dupilumab at a dose of 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks or matched-volume placebos for 52 weeks. The primary end points were the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations and the absolute change from baseline to week 12 in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) before bronchodilator use in the overall trial population. Secondary end points included the exacerbation rate and FEV1 in patients with a blood eosinophil count of 300 or more per cubic millimeter. Asthma control and dupilumab safety were also assessed. RESULTS: The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.53) among patients assigned to 200 mg of dupilumab every 2 weeks and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05) among those assigned to a matched placebo, for a 47.7% lower rate with dupilumab than with placebo (P<0.001); similar results were seen with the dupilumab dose of 300 mg every 2 weeks. At week 12, the FEV1 had increased by 0.32 liters in patients assigned to the lower dose of dupilumab (difference vs. matched placebo, 0.14 liters; P<0.001); similar results were seen with the higher dose. Among patients with a blood eosinophil count of 300 or more per cubic millimeter, the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.48) among those receiving lower-dose dupilumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.38) among those receiving a matched placebo (65.8% lower rate with dupilumab than with placebo; 95% CI, 52.0 to 75.6); similar results were observed with the higher dose. Blood eosinophilia occurred after the start of the intervention in 52 patients (4.1%) who received dupilumab as compared with 4 patients (0.6%) who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, patients who received dupilumab had significantly lower rates of severe asthma exacerbation than those who received placebo, as well as better lung function and asthma control. Greater benefits were seen in patients with higher baseline levels of eosinophils. Hypereosinophilia was observed in some patients. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02414854 .).

Sarilumab Plus Methotrexate in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: Results of a Phase III Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Adults with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (1:1:1) to receive sarilumab (doses of 150 mg or 200 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks in conjunction with weekly MTX for 52 weeks. Co-primary end points were the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement responses at week 24, change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) at week 16, and change from baseline in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) of radiographic damage at week 52. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the groups. For all 3 co-primary end points, the sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements as compared with the placebo group (ACR20 response rate at week 24, 58.0%, 66.4%, and 33.4%, respectively [P < 0.0001]; least squares mean change in HAQ DI at week 16, -0.53, -0.55, and -0.29, respectively [P < 0.0001]; and mean change in SHS at week 52, 0.90, 0.25, and 2.78, respectively [P < 0.0001]). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was infection. In the sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, and placebo groups, the incidence of serious infections was 2.6%, 4.0%, and 2.3%, respectively. Elevations in alanine aminotransferase levels >3-fold the upper limit of normal occurred in 9.5%, 8.0%, and 2.1% of patients, respectively; in 24 patients, this led to discontinuation of treatment. Elevated total cholesterol levels were observed in 36.8%, 43.0%, and 18.3% of patients, respectively. In patients receiving 150 mg and 200 mg sarilumab, neutrophil counts of 0.5 to <1.0 × 10(9) /liter were observed in 5.1% and 7.8% of patients, respectively, while neutrophil counts of <0.5 × 10(9) /liter were observed in 0.9% and 0.7% of patients, respectively; none of the patients receiving placebo experienced changes in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSION: In RA patients treated with sarilumab (150 mg or 200 mg every 2 weeks) in combination with MTX, both doses provided sustained clinical efficacy, as shown by significant improvements in symptomatic, functional, and radiographic outcomes. Sarilumab was generally well tolerated. The adverse events observed in this study were consistent with the effects of interleukin-6 signaling blockade.