Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in children with asthma (LIBERTY ASTHMA EXCURSION): an open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab efficacy and safety in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma were shown in the VOYAGE study-a 52-week, multinational, multicentre, phase 3 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in children with moderate-to-severe asthma who previously participated in the VOYAGE study. METHODS: 365 of 408 children with moderate-to-severe asthma from VOYAGE enrolled in EXCURSION, a 52 week, open-label extension study conducted at 70 centres across 17 countries. 240 children continued with add-on dupilumab (dosed according to bodyweight: 100 mg for those weighing ≤30 kg and 200 mg for those weighing more than 30 kg at EXCURSION baseline) once every 2 weeks administered by subcutaneous injection (dupilumab/dupilumab group) and 125 children on placebo during VOYAGE initiated dupilumab (100 or 200 mg, according to bodyweight), once every 2 weeks administered by subcutaneous injection (placebo/dupilumab group). Following a protocol amendment, for a subset of children weighing 30 kg or less, the dose was changed to 300 mg once every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint for the open-label extension study was the number and proportion of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the 52-week study period in the overall population (defined as children aged 6-11 years old with moderate-to-severe asthma who previously completed VOYAGE). Statistical analyses were descriptive. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03560466; EXCURSION). FINDINGS: Children who completed VOYAGE were eligible to enrol in EXCURSION between June 21, 2018 and Aug 18, 2020. During EXCURSION, the safety profile and proportion of patients reporting TEAEs were consistent with those observed during the parent study (VOYAGE). In the overall population, 232 (63·6%) of 365 patients experienced at least one TEAE (dupilumab/dupilumab: 147 [61·3%]; placebo/dupilumab: 85 [68·0%]). The most frequently reported TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infections. INTERPRETATION: In EXCURSION, long-term treatment with dupilumab was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Assessment of dupilumab in children with moderate-to-severe type 2 asthma with or without evidence of allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Cytokines, such as interleukins (IL)-4/5/13, play a key role in multiple type 2 inflammatory diseases, including allergic asthma. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for IL-4/IL-13, inhibiting signaling. In this post hoc analysis of VOYAGE (NCT02948959), dupilumab efficacy was evaluated in patients aged 6-11 years with type 2 asthma with or without evidence of allergic asthma (baseline serum total IgE ≥30 IU/mL and ≥1 perennial aeroallergen-specific IgE ≥0.35kU/L). METHODS: Annualized severe exacerbation rates (AER) and changes in pre-bronchodilator (Pre-BD) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1 ), percent-predicted pre-BD FEV1 (ppFEV1 ), and Asthma Control Score (ACQ)-7 were assessed during the treatment period. RESULTS: 350 children (261 with and 89 without evidence of allergic asthma) were included. Dupilumab versus placebo significantly reduced AER in patients with (0.24 vs. 0.62, relative risk reduction [RRR]: 62% [95% CI, 39-76], P < .0001) and without (0.39 vs. 0.80, RRR: 51% [95% CI, 0-76], P < .05) evidence of allergic asthma. Significant improvements in ppFEV1 , pre-bronchodilator FEV1 , and ACQ-7 scores were observed in dupilumab versus placebo throughout the treatment period in patients with evidence of allergic asthma. In patients without evidence of allergic asthma, numerical improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and asthma control were observed by Week 52. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab versus placebo reduced asthma exacerbations in children with type 2 asthma irrespective of evidence of allergic asthma; similar trends were observed in changes in lung function. Significant improvement in asthma control was observed in patients with evidence of allergic asthma, but not in those without.

Physician Perception of Disease Severity and Treatment Outcomes for Children and Adolescents with Atopic Dermatitis in Emerging Economies.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) leads to a considerable reduction in quality of life for patients and their families. Therapeutic options for pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe disease are limited and treatment is challenging. As little is understood about physician perceptions of pediatric AD in countries with emerging healthcare, we conducted a questionnaire-based study to identify treatment patterns and gaps. METHODS: Physicians treating children (aged 6-11 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with AD in 11 emerging economy countries were interviewed regarding their beliefs and behaviors relating to the disease. Physicians gave an initial assessment of patient disease severity and control, which was then compared with patient records and pre-specified criteria to assess concordance and discordance between physician perception and recorded patient presentation. RESULTS: A total of 574 physicians completed the study, with an assessment of 1719 patients. Only 51% of patients whose disease criteria matched 'severe disease' to pre-specified criteria and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis scores (SCORAD) were also initially identified by physicians as having severe disease. Patients with moderate-to-severe disease experienced flares for an average of 263 days in the preceding year. Ninety and 74% of patients experienced chronic flares and unpredictable flares, respectively. Control of flares could only be achieved within 7 days in 14% (n = 153) of patients. Most physicians listed elimination of skin symptoms as their primary treatment goal, and for moderate and severe cases, 59% and 33% of physicians reported that they were able to achieve this respectively. Nearly 24% and 40% of physicians were slightly dissatisfied with the treatment options for moderate disease and severe disease and severe disease, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AD severity of children (aged 6-11 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) appears to be underestimated by physicians in emerging economy countries. Practical, easy-to-use, and validated objective measures for assessment of disease severity and control, as well as effective use of novel therapies, are essential to ensure that patients are appropriately managed.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common childhood disease that occurs in up to 30% of individuals under 18 years of age. Although most forms are mild, more severe disease forms of AD including symptoms such as pruritus, xerosis, lichenification, and excoriation of the skin can cause significant problems, such as lack of sleep, lack of productivity, poor self-image, and mental health disorders among patients. It also places a burden on patients' families, which affects home, school, and work life. In children with moderate-to-severe disease, treatment options are limited especially since doctors may not be keen to prescribe high-dose treatments to children such as potent and super-potent topical corticoid steroids and progress to systemic therapies. Relatively little is understood about how doctors determine whether the disease is mild, moderate, or severe and what they consider to be the best treatment options for patients. Therefore, we conducted a series of interviews with doctors in 11 countries with emerging healthcare to better understand their beliefs and behaviors about treating childhood AD. Our results indicated that doctors tended to underestimate the severity of a patient's disease. Additionally, 59% of doctors felt that they were able to successfully eliminate itching and skin syndrome frequently (that is, in 70% or more of their patients) in patients with moderate disease and 33% of doctors for their patients with severe disease. These results suggest that there are many unmet needs in the treatment of children and adolescents with AD in emerging economies, whose treatment could be further optimized. Improving how doctors measure the severity of a patient's disease should help them select the most appropriate and effective treatments for their patients.

Assessment of the long-term safety of mepolizumab and durability of clinical response in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab has demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy profiles in placebo-controlled trials of 12 months' duration or less; however, long-term data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). METHODS: COLUMBA (Open-label Long Term Extension Safety Study of Mepolizumab in Asthmatic Subjects, NCT01691859) was an open-label extension study in patients with SEA previously enrolled in DREAM (Dose Ranging Efficacy And Safety With Mepolizumab in Severe Asthma, NCT01000506). Patients received 100 mg of subcutaneous mepolizumab every 4 weeks plus standard of care until a protocol-defined stopping criterion was met. Safety end points included frequency of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of special interest. Efficacy end points included annualized exacerbation rates, changes from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 scores, and blood eosinophil counts. Immunogenicity was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 347 patients were enrolled for an average of 3.5 years (maximum, 4.5 years; total exposure, 1201 patient-years). On-treatment AEs were reported in 94% of patients (exposure-adjusted rate, 3688 events/1000 patient-years). The most frequently reported on-treatment AEs were respiratory tract infection, headache, bronchitis, and asthma worsening. Seventy-nine (23%) patients experienced 1 or more on-treatment serious AEs; there were 6 deaths, none of which were assessed as related to mepolizumab. For patients with 156 weeks or greater enrollment, the exacerbation rate was 0.74 events/y (weeks 0-156), a 56% reduction from the off-treatment period between DREAM and COLUMBA. For all patients, at the first postbaseline assessment, the mean Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 score was reduced by 0.47 points, and blood eosinophil counts were reduced by 78%, with similar improvements maintained throughout the study. The immunogenicity profile (8% anti-drug antibodies) was consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSION: These data support the long-term safety and efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with SEA.

[Argentine guidelines for urticaria and angioedema]. / Guía argentina de urticaria y angioedema.

This interdisciplinary paper summarizes the news in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic urticaria (CU), and provides concepts, definitions and evidence-based suggestions for its management. Urticaria occurs in at least 20% of the population at some point in their lives. Acute urticaria (less than 6 weeks' duration), differs from CU in its etiology, but the onset of this disease is always acute. CU may occur as spontaneous (SCU) or induced (ICU). The diagnosis is simple, although a careful evaluation is necessary for differential diagnosis. ICU's diagnosis is mainly clinical, even if provocation tests can be useful. Supplementary studies should be limited and based on the clinical suspicion. Treatment may be divided into three approaches: avoidance, elimination or treatment of the cause, and pharmacological treatment. Recently treatment has been modified with the use of second-generation antihistamines as first-line and increased doses of nonsedating H1 antihistamines, up to 4 times, as second line. Antihistamines are essential to treat CU; however, 40% of patients do not achieve good control despite increased doses and require additional treatment. The most recent evidence indicates a group of drugs to be used as third line in these cases, to improve quality of life and to limit toxicity from frequent or chronic use of systemic steroids. Only 3 drugs are recommended as third line: omalizumab, cyclosporin A or anti-leukotrienes.

Guía Argentina de urticaria y angioedema

Se actualiza el diagnóstico de la urticaria crónica (UC) y los conceptos, definiciones y sugerencias basados en la evidencia para su tratamiento. La urticaria ocurre en al menos 20% de la población en algún momento de la vida. Su etiología difiere en la forma aguda (menos de 6 semanas), y en la crónica. No es posible pronosticar si las formas agudas evolucionarán a UC, ya que todas son agudas al comienzo. La UC ocurre como espontánea (UCE) o inducible (UCI). El diagnóstico es sencillo, pero incluye un minucioso estudio para descartar diagnósticos diferenciales; para UCI son útiles las pruebas de provocación en la caracterización y manejo. Los estudios complementarios se deben limitar y orientar según sospecha clínica. El tratamiento se divide en tres enfoques: evitación, eliminación o tratamiento del estímulo desencadenante o de la causa, y tratamiento farmacológico. Recientemente éste se modificó, con empleo de antihistamínicos de segunda generación como primera línea y aumento de dosis de antihistamínicos H1 no sedantes, hasta 4 veces, como segunda línea. Los antihistamínicos son fundamentales para tratar la UC; sin embargo, un 40% de los pacientes no logra un buen control pese al aumento de dosis y requiere otro medicamento adicional. La evidencia más reciente considera que un grupo de fármacos puede utilizarse como tercera línea en estos casos, para mejorar la calidad de vida y limitar la toxicidad por el uso frecuente o crónico de esteroides sistémicos. Se recomiendan para esta tercera línea solo 3 fármacos: omalizumab, ciclosporina A o antileucotrienos.

This interdisciplinary paper summarizes the news in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic urticaria (CU), and provides concepts, definitions and evidence-based suggestions for its management. Urticaria occurs in at least 20% of the population at some point in their lives. Acute urticaria (less than 6 weeks' duration), differs from CU in its etiology, but the onset of this disease is always acute. CU may occur as spontaneous (SCU) or induced (ICU). The diagnosis is simple, although a careful evaluation is necessary for differential diagnosis. ICU´s diagnosis is mainly clinical, even if provocation tests can be useful. Supplementary studies should be limited and based on the clinical suspicion. Treatment may be divided into three approaches: avoidance, elimination or treatment of the cause, and pharmacological treatment. Recently treatment has been modified with the use of second-generation antihistamines as first-line and increased doses of nonsedating H1 antihistamines, up to 4 times, as second line. Antihistamines are essential to treat CU; however, 40% of patients do not achieve good control despite increased doses and require additional treatment. The most recent evidence indicates a group of drugs to be used as third line in these cases, to improve quality of life and to limit toxicity from frequent or chronic use of systemic steroids. Only 3 drugs are recommended as third line: omalizumab, cyclosporin A or anti-leukotrienes.

Assessment of the long-term safety of inhaled ciclesonide on growth in children with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the new inhaled corticosteroid ciclesonide on growth in children with asthma. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the effects of inhaled ciclesonide on growth in children with mild, persistent asthma. After a 6-month run-in period, 661 prepubertal children who were aged 5.0 to 8.5 years were randomly assigned to once-daily morning treatment for 1 year with ciclesonide 40 or 160 microg (ex-actuator) or placebo, followed by a 2-month follow-up period. The primary end point was the linear growth velocity (linear regression estimate) over the double-blind treatment period. Growth was recorded as the median of 4 stadiometer measurements. Adverse events and 10-hour overnight and 24-hour urinary free cortisol levels were also assessed. RESULTS: Mean linear growth velocity during run-in was comparable between groups: 160 microg, 6.20 cm/year; 40 microg, 6.59 cm/year; placebo, 6.49 cm/year. Mean differences from placebo (5.75 cm/year) in growth velocity over the double-blind treatment period were -0.02 cm/year for ciclesonide 40 microg and -0.15 cm/year for ciclesonide 160 microg. Both ciclesonide treatments were noninferior to placebo with respect to growth velocity. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups, and no significant changes in 10-hour overnight or 24-hour urinary free cortisol levels were noted between groups during the double-blind treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Ciclesonide demonstrated no detectable effect on childhood growth velocity, even at the highest dosage, which may ease concerns about systemic adverse events.