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.).

The international EAACI/GA²LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria.

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

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

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.

Effect of Lanadelumab Compared With Placebo on Prevention of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current treatments for long-term prophylaxis in hereditary angioedema have limitations. Objective: To assess the efficacy of lanadelumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits active plasma kallikrein, in preventing hereditary angioedema attacks. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 41 sites in Canada, Europe, Jordan, and the United States. Patients were randomized between March 3, 2016, and September 9, 2016; last day of follow-up was April 13, 2017. Randomization was 2:1 lanadelumab to placebo; patients assigned to lanadelumab were further randomized 1:1:1 to 1 of the 3 dose regimens. Patients 12 years or older with hereditary angioedema type I or II underwent a 4-week run-in period and those with 1 or more hereditary angioedema attacks during run-in were randomized. Interventions: Twenty-six-week treatment with subcutaneous lanadelumab 150 mg every 4 weeks (n = 28), 300 mg every 4 weeks (n = 29), 300 mg every 2 weeks (n = 27), or placebo (n = 41). All patients received injections every 2 weeks, with those in the every-4-week group receiving placebo in between active treatments. Main Outcome and Measures: Primary efficacy end point was the number of investigator-confirmed attacks of hereditary angioedema over the treatment period. Results: Among 125 patients randomized (mean age, 40.7 years [SD, 14.7 years]; 88 females [70.4%]; 113 white [90.4%]), 113 (90.4%) completed the study. During the run-in period, the mean number of hereditary angioedema attacks per month in the placebo group was 4.0; for the lanadelumab groups, 3.2 for the every-4-week 150-mg group; 3.7 for the every-4-week 300-mg group; and 3.5 for the every-2-week 300-mg group. During the treatment period, the mean number of attacks per month for the placebo group was 1.97; for the lanadelumab groups, 0.48 for the every-4-week 150-mg group; 0.53 for the every-4-week 300-mg group; and 0.26 for the every-2-week 300-mg group. Compared with placebo, the mean differences in the attack rate per month were -1.49 (95% CI, -1.90 to -1.08; P < .001); -1.44 (95% CI, -1.84 to -1.04; P < .001); and -1.71 (95% CI, -2.09 to -1.33; P < .001). The most commonly occurring adverse events with greater frequency in the lanadelumab treatment groups were injection site reactions (34.1% placebo, 52.4% lanadelumab) and dizziness (0% placebo, 6.0% lanadelumab). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with hereditary angioedema type I or II, treatment with subcutaneous lanadelumab for 26 weeks significantly reduced the attack rate compared with placebo. These findings support the use of lanadelumab as a prophylactic therapy for hereditary angioedema. Further research is needed to determine long-term safety and efficacy. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2015-003943-20; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02586805.

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.

Tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination versus mono-components in COPD (GOLD 2-4).

Efficacy and safety of tiotropium+olodaterol fixed-dose combination (FDC) compared with the mono-components was evaluated in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in two replicate, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III trials. Patients received tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 µg or 5/5 µg, tiotropium 2.5 µg or 5 µg, or olodaterol 5 µg delivered once-daily via Respimat inhaler over 52 weeks. Primary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 3 h (AUC0-3) response, trough FEV1 response and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at 24 weeks. In total, 5162 patients (2624 in Study 1237.5 and 2538 in Study 1237.6) received treatment. Both FDCs significantly improved FEV1 AUC0-3 and trough FEV1 response versus the mono-components in both studies. Statistically significant improvements in SGRQ total score versus the mono-components were only seen for tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 5/5 µg. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between the FDCs and the mono-components. These studies demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and health-related quality of life with once-daily tiotropium+olodaterol FDC versus mono-components over 1 year in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

The 24-h lung-function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effects on 24-h lung function and lung volume of a once-daily fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium and the long-acting ß2-agonist olodaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial with an incomplete crossover design. Patients received four of the following six treatment options for 6 weeks each: placebo, olodaterol 5 µg, tiotropium 2.5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 µg and tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 5/5 µg, all delivered via the Respimat(®) inhaler. The primary end point was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response after 6 weeks of treatment; key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC from 0 to 12 h and AUC from 12 to 24 h, and further end points included lung-volume parameters measured using body plethysmography (subset of patients), measures of peak and trough FEV1, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A significant improvement in FEV1 AUC0-24 response was observed with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg and 2.5/5 µg versus placebo and monotherapies after 6 weeks of treatment; mean response with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg versus placebo was 0.280 L (p < 0.0001). Differences to monotherapies with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg were 0.115 L versus olodaterol 5 µg, 0.127 L versus tiotropium 2.5 µg and 0.110 L versus tiotropium 5 µg (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Secondary end points supported these data. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in lung function over 24 h with an FDC of tiotropium + olodaterol over tiotropium or olodaterol alone, with no observed difference in tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01559116.

Real-life experiences with omalizumab for the treatment of chronic urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Evidence has shown that omalizumab, a subcutaneous anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, is highly effective for the treatment of chronic urticaria. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate omalizumab 150 mg/month in severe, difficult-to-treat, chronic urticaria in a real-life setting. METHODS: This prospective open-label study evaluated of 150 mg of omalizumab in severe urticaria defined by a 7-day urticaria activity score (UAS-7) higher than 30, a history of oral glucocorticoid use, and by suboptimal response to previous treatments. Two subgroups of patients at different centers (Toronto and Quebec City, Canada) were included. The primary efficacy evaluation was a change in UAS-7 from baseline. A quantitative medication score assessed the use of other anti-urticarial medications. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were included: 61 with chronic spontaneous urticaria, 6 with cold urticaria, and 1 with urticarial vasculitis. Patients were followed for up to 25 months. In Toronto, mean UAS-7 decreased from 32.2 at baseline to 5.7 after the last omalizumab treatment. Seventy-nine percent achieved complete remission during omalizumab therapy (UAS-7 0) and 6 (18%) showed improvement but never achieved complete remission. The most common maintenance dosing intervals were 1 to 3 months. In Quebec City, from baseline to 18 months, mean UAS-7 decreased from 24.4 to 2.2 and the quantitative medication score decreased from 13.3 to 3.0. All 6 patients with cold urticaria became symptom free, with a significant decrease of their cold stimulation tolerance test. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab 150 mg was effective in difficult to treat patients with severe, chronic urticaria refractory to recommended treatments who usually required prednisone. Omalizumab induced a long-lasting positive response and was well tolerated without side effects.