Upadacitinib in Adolescents With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Analysis of 3 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials Through 76 Weeks.

Importance: The Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up studies demonstrated the efficacy and adverse events of upadacitinib through 52 weeks in adults and adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD); however, longer-term outcomes (longer than 1 year) in adolescents have not previously been available. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of upadacitinib in adolescent patients with moderate to severe AD through 76 weeks. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up trials are ongoing double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials including adolescents (aged 12 to 17 years) with moderate to severe AD. Data were collected from August 2018 to April 2022, and data were analyzed from June 2022 to September 2023. Interventions: Adolescents were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral upadacitinib, 15 mg; upadacitinib, 30 mg; or placebo, either alone (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 trials) or with topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, placebo-treated patients were rerandomized to receive upadacitinib, 15 mg, or upadacitinib, 30 mg, daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary end points assessing efficacy included achievement of 75% reduction or more in the Eczema Area and Severity Index Score (EASI-75) from baseline, Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with 2 grades or more of improvement, and Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) improvement of 4 points or greater through week 76 for participants with a WP-NRS score of 4 points or higher at baseline. Results: From all studies, 542 adolescents were included; of these, 284 (52.4%) were female. At week 76, among patients in the Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up trials, EASI-75 was achieved by 89.1%, 84.4%, and 87.8% of adolescents taking upadacitinib, 15 mg, respectively, and by 96.1%, 93.6%, and 82.7% of adolescents taking upadacitinib, 30 mg, indicating maintenance or improvement of EASI-75 across 76 weeks with upadacitinib. Efficacy measured by achievement of vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1 and WP-NRS improvement of 4 points or more from baseline was similarly maintained or improved through week 76 for adolescents taking upadacitinib, 15 mg or 30 mg. Long-term outcomes in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up participants were consistent with the known adverse event profile of upadacitinib (herpetic infection: 4.0, 1.9, and 1.1 events per 100 patient-years, respectively; creatine kinase elevation: 11.6, 11.0, and 7.1 events per 100 patient-years); no new signals were observed with either dose. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study assessing 3 randomized clinical trials, long-term treatment of adolescents with moderate to severe AD with upadacitinib demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile, with sustained efficacy responses through 76 weeks. Trial Registrations: Measure Up 1 trial: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03569293; Measure Up 2 trial: NCT03607422; AD Up trial: NCT03568318.

Quality of Life Improvements with Biologic Initiation Among Subspecialist-Treated US Patients with Severe Asthma.

Purpose: Patients living with severe asthma (SA) experience multiple health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairments. This study examined HRQoL changes after biologic treatment initiation among a large, real-world cohort of patients with SA. Patients and methods: CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of subspecialist-treated adults with SA who receive biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Patients enrolled February 2018-February 2023 were asked to complete the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) every 6 months (total score range of 0-100 [0=best possible health], meaningful change threshold is a 4-unit reduction in the total score). Changes in SGRQ responses from 6 months before initiation to 12 to 18 months after initiation were summarized. Results: A total of 76 patients completed the SGRQ 0 to 6 months before and 12 to 18 months after biologic initiation. The mean (SD) SGRQ total score decreased from 52.2 (20.6) to 41.9 (23.8), with improvement across the symptoms (-14.5), activity (-11.0), and impacts (-8.3) components. For specific impairments reported by ≥50% of patients before biologic initiation, fewer reported each impairment after biologic initiation; the largest reductions were for "Questions about what activities usually make you feel short of breath these days [Walking outside on level ground]" (67% to 43%), "Questions about other effects that your respiratory problems may have on you these days [I feel that I am not in control of my respiratory problems]" (55% to 34%), and "Questions about your cough and shortness of breath these days [My coughing or breathing disturbs my sleep]" (63% to 45%). Conclusion: In this real-world cohort of adults with SA, biologic initiation was associated with meaningful improvements in asthma-related HRQoL. These data provide further insight into the burden SA places on patients and the benefits of biologic treatment.

The Impact of Prior Authorization on Clinical Practice and Patient Care Outcomes: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Prior Authorization Task Force.

The Prior Authorization Task Force of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), a presidential initiative of David Khan, MD, FAAAI, was established to develop an AAAAI position statement outlining ways to improve health care for our patients, to support legislation that advocates for prior authorization (PA) reform and identify the impact PA has on its membership using a questionnaire survey. This article describes the results of this survey. An electronic anonymous survey questionnaire was developed to assess the impact and burden of PA on AAAAI members and their staff and patients. Surveys were sent to randomly selected members and fellows of the AAAAI in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results by the Information Services team of the AAAAI and the authors of this work group report. The questionnaire responses from allergy immunology specialists demographically reflected the AAAAI membership and indicate that PAs can significantly affect patient care delivery and increase administrative burden to clinical practices, leading to serious adverse events in some circumstances. Differential responses regarding PAs for various medication classes likely reflect the physician's patient population, which can shift prescribing patterns. Prior authorization is a serious health care problem that is wasting financial resources and needlessly placing patients in danger when they are unable to access medications or medical services required for clinical management. The results of this questionnaire study support the recommendations made in the recent AAAAI position statement on PA.

Lebrikizumab in Uncontrolled Asthma: Reanalysis in a Well-Defined Type 2 Population.

BACKGROUND: LAVOLTA (L)I, LII, and ACOUSTICS were randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trials of lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-13 in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Failure to demonstrate efficacy may have been related to patient selection in those trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy in a well-defined subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophil counts and a minimum number of prior asthma exacerbations. We performed an additional analysis in a subpopulation of patients with elevated FeNO and prior exacerbations. METHODS: Adult (LI and LII) and adolescent patients (aged 12-17 years weighing ≥40 kg, ACOUSTICS) with uncontrolled asthma received lebrikizumab (125 mg, n = 832; or 37.5 mg, n = 829) or placebo (n = 833) subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Post hoc analysis of the annualized adjusted exacerbation rate (AER) was performed in a subpopulation of patients with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and history of one or more exacerbations. In this subpopulation, there were 227 patients in the placebo group, 222 in the lebrikizumab 37.5-mg group, and 217 in the lebrikizumab 125-mg group. We summarized safety in patients who received at least one dose of lebrikizumab using adverse events. RESULTS: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced AER compared with placebo in adults (AER reduction: 125 mg [38%]; and 37.5 mg [41%]) and adolescents (AER reduction:125 mg [59%]; 37.5 mg [64%]) with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and one or more exacerbations. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations in a subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophils, elevated FeNO, and a history of asthma exacerbation.

Disease burden and predictors associated with non-response to antihistamine-based therapy in chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Background: H1-antihistamines (H1AH) are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), but 50% of patients have inadequate disease control at standard doses. Objective: To assess the comorbidity burden and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with non-response to H1AH-based treatments; to identify predictors of non-response. Methods: Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset (2007-2020) was used to identify adult patients with CSU who initiated a H1AH, alone or in combination with other oral non-biologics (index treatment). Based on twelve-month treatment patterns observed after index treatment initiation, patients were categorized as responders (continued index treatment or had only 1 next H1AH treatment without corticosteroids) or non-responders (continued corticosteroids or had 2 or more treatment switches). Patient characteristics and HRU were assessed in the 12 months before (baseline) and ≥12 months after (follow-up) index treatment initiation. Baseline predictors associated with non-response were identified using machine learning. Results: There were 17 062 patients who met inclusion criteria, and 14824 (86.9%) were classified as non-responders. A higher proportion of non-responders had records of CSU-related symptoms, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and certain laboratory tests than responders at baseline. A higher proportion of non-responders than responders visited an allergist or dermatologist during follow-up (59.5% vs 53.0%). Non-responders had a larger increase in hospitalizations (15.7% vs -2.4%) than responders during follow-up vs baseline. Predictors of non-response included index and baseline treatment classes, types of specialists seen, chronic pulmonary disease, depression, and female sex. Conclusion: A large proportion of CSU patients treated with H1AH-based therapies had uncontrolled disease, contributing to increased HRU and patient burden. Non-responders had more comorbidities and HRU at baseline and follow-up, with steep increases in follow-up hospitalizations relative to baseline, highlighting an urgent need for early disease control.

Real-world severe asthma biologic administration and adherence differs by biologic: CHRONICLE study results.

BACKGROUND: Patient adherence to biologic therapies is crucial for clinical benefits. Previous assessments of US patient adherence to severe asthma (SA) biologic therapies have relied on health care insurance claims data that have limitations. OBJECTIVE: To describe real-world, specialist-reported, biologic administration and adherence among US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045) is an ongoing real-world, noninterventional study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Sites report date and location for all biologic administrations. We evaluated biologic (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab) adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first 52 weeks and the mean number of days until patients received the expected number of doses for 13, 26, and 52 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 2117 patients received biologic administrations between February 2018 and February 2022. Most patients (84%) received biologic administrations at a subspecialist site. Over time, administrations at specialist sites decreased, whereas at-home administrations increased. The median PDC was 87%; the mean number of days to receive a 52-week (364-day) equivalent number of doses was 423 for all biologics (average delay of 58 days). Dupilumab had the lowest PDC and highest mean delays in dosing across all intervals; better adherence was observed among commercially insured patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with SA are mostly adherent to biologic therapies. Biologics with shorter dosing intervals and at-home administration had worse adherence, likely because of greater opportunities for delays. Specialist-reported administration data provide a unique perspective on biologic adherence, which may be overestimated for at-home administrations by insurance claims data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03373045.

Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: How to Measure It and the Need to Define Treatment Success.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a complex skin disease characterized by the spontaneous appearance of wheals, angioedema, or both, for more than 6 weeks. Many patients experience a relapsing-remitting disease course for years. Owing to the unpredictability of wheal recurrence and the severity of pruritis, patients suffer considerable impairment in their quality of life. Physicians face multiple challenges, not least of which is a lack of clear guidance on what constitutes "treatment success". There is a lack of awareness of which measures should be used to best assess the various aspects of CSU, including disease activity, disease control, and quality of life-which themselves each comprise multiple components-and how to apply the results of each score to treatment decision-making. Although the overarching aim of treatment is for patients to be completely free of signs and symptoms of CSU, a more realistic definition of "treatment success" is needed to guide ongoing, long-term disease management for each individual patient. In this review, we consider what lessons can be learned from the current evidence base to provide further direction toward a universal definition of "treatment success".

Comparing how well abrocitinib and dupilumab treat atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Atopic dermatitis (AD, also called atopic eczema) is a skin disease that that can affect a person for a long time and causes red or flaky skin that can be itchy and uncomfortable. Healthcare providers can prescribe medicated creams and ointments to reduce the visible signs and symptoms of AD, but these treatments are not always enough to keep it under control. A new medicine called abrocitinib is taken every day as a tablet. Abrocitinib works by slowing a part of the body's defense mechanism, called immune response, that is not functioning properly in AD. The clinical study described in this plain language summary, called JADE DARE, investigated how well and how safely 26 weeks of treatment with abrocitinib worked in adults with AD compared to an injected medicine, called dupilumab, that is also approved for AD. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The study showed that abrocitinib was more effective than dupilumab in providing itch relief after 2 weeks. In addition, people who were taking abrocitinib for 4 and 16 weeks experienced greater improvement in the visible skin signs of AD than people who were taking dupilumab. The number of people who had health complaints while taking abrocitinib was similar to the number of people who had health complaints while taking dupilumab. Most of these complaints were minor. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Abrocitinib was more effective than dupilumab in quickly improving the signs and symptoms of moderate or severe AD in people who did not show improvement with prescribed medications like creams or ointments. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04345367 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efficacy and Safety of Tralokinumab in Adolescents With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: The Phase 3 ECZTRA 6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Safe and effective long-term treatments for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are limited. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interleukin-13-targeted treatment with tralokinumab monotherapy in adolescents with AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 52-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ECZTRA 6 trial was conducted from July 17, 2018, through March 16, 2021, at 72 centers across 10 countries in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Enrolled patients were 12 to 17 years old with moderate to severe AD (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥3; Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] ≥16). Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to tralokinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks for 16 weeks. Patients with an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and/or 75% or higher improvement in EASI (EASI 75) at week 16 without rescue medication received maintenance treatment; other patients switched to open-label tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points at week 16 were an IGA score of 0 or 1 and/or achieving EASI 75. Key secondary end points were a reduction of Adolescent Worst Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale of 4 or more, change in SCORing AD, and change in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index from baseline to week 16. Safety end points were the number of adverse events and serious adverse events. Results: Of 301 patients randomized, 289 comprised the full analysis set (median [IQR] age, 15.0 [13.0-16.0] years; 149 [51.6%] male). More patients receiving tralokinumab, 150 mg, (n = 98), and tralokinumab, 300 mg (n = 97), achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 without rescue medication at week 16 (21 [21.4%] and 17 [17.5%], respectively) vs placebo (n = 94; 4 [4.3%]) (adjusted difference, 17.5% [95% CI, 8.4%-26.6%]; P < .001 and 13.8% [95% CI, 5.3%-22.3%]; P = .002, respectively). More patients receiving tralokinumab, 150 mg (28 [28.6%]), and tralokinumab, 300 mg, (27 [27.8%]) vs placebo (6 [6.4%]) achieved EASI 75 without rescue at week 16 (adjusted difference, 22.5% [95% CI, 12.4%-32.6%]; P < .001 and 22.0% [95% CI, 12.0%-32.0%]; P < .001, respectively). Proportions of patients with Adolescent Worst Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale reduction of 4 or more from baseline were greater with tralokinumab, 150 mg (23.2%), and tralokinumab, 300 (25.0%), vs placebo (3.3%), and adjusted mean changes were greater in SCORing AD with tralokinumab, 150 mg (-27.5), and tralokinumab, 300 mg (-29.1), vs placebo (-9.5) and in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index with tralokinumab, 150 mg (-6.1), and tralokinumab, 300 mg (-6.7), vs placebo (-4.1) at week 16. At week 52, tralokinumab efficacy was maintained without rescue in more than 50% of patients meeting primary end point(s) at week 16. In the open-label phase, IGA score of 0 or 1 and EASI 75 were achieved in 33.3% and 57.8%, respectively, at week 52. Tralokinumab was well tolerated, without frequency of conjunctivitis increasing through week 52. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, tralokinumab was efficacious and well tolerated, supporting its value for treating adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03526861.

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib Treatment in Adolescents With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Analysis of the Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Atopic dermatitis onset usually occurs in childhood. Persistence of disease into adolescence and adulthood is common. It is important to evaluate new treatment options in adolescents because of the high unmet need in this population. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified analysis of adolescents enrolled in 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trials in more than 20 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020. Participants were adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Data analysis was performed from April to August 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo alone (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2) or with topical corticosteroids (AD Up). Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and efficacy, including at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline and validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at week 16 (coprimary end points). Results: A total of 552 adolescents (290 female; 262 male) were randomized. Mean (SD) age was 15.4 (1.8), 15.5 (1.7), and 15.3 (1.8) years for adolescents in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively. In Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents (% [95% CI]) achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index at week 16 with upadacitinib 15 mg (73% [63%-84%], 69% [57%-81%], 63% [51%-76%]), and upadacitinib 30 mg (78% [68%-88%], 73% [62%-85%], 84% [75%-94%]), than with placebo (12% [4%-20%], 13% [5%-22%], 30% [19%-42%]; nominal P < .001 for all comparisons vs placebo). Similarly, a greater proportion of adolescents treated with upadacitinib achieved a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 or 1 at week 16 and improvements in quality of life with upadacitinib than with placebo. Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated in adolescents. Acne was the most common adverse event, and all acne events were mild or moderate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials, upadacitinib was an effective treatment for adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, with an acceptable safety profile. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1), NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2), and NCT03568318 (AD Up).

Number of patient-reported asthma triggers predicts uncontrolled disease among specialist-treated patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma (SA) experience a high disease burden, often precipitated by exposure to disease triggers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and effects of patient-reported triggers on asthma disease burden in a cohort of subspecialist-treated patients with SA in the United States. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an observational study of adults with SA receiving biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or whose disease is uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and additional controllers. Data were analyzed for patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021. This analysis evaluated patient-reported triggers from a 17-category survey and associations with multiple measures of disease burden. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 1434 (51%) completed the trigger questionnaire. The median trigger number per patient was 8 (interquartile range, 5-10). The most frequent triggers were weather or air changes, viral infections, seasonal allergies, perennial allergies, and exercise. Patients reporting more triggers experienced more poorly controlled disease, worse quality of life, and reduced work productivity. The annualized rates of exacerbations and asthma hospitalizations increased by 7% and 17%, respectively, for each additional trigger (both P < .001). For all measures, trigger number was a stronger predictor of disease burden than blood eosinophil count. CONCLUSION: Among US specialist-treated patients with SA, asthma trigger number was positively and significantly associated with greater uncontrolled disease burden across multiple measures, which highlights the importance of understanding patient-reported triggers in SA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

Dupilumab-Treated Patients with Asthma in the Real World: The RAPID Global Registry.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation. In clinical studies, dupilumab reduced the risk of severe asthma exacerbations, and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s and quality of life in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of RAPID (NCT04287621) are to characterize patients with asthma initiating dupilumab in routine clinical practice and to collect information on long-term effectiveness and safety in these patients. METHODS: RAPID is a global, prospective, observational registry that will enroll approximately 1000 patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with asthma from 150 sites globally. Dupilumab treatment will be initiated in routine clinical practice according to country-specific prescribing information, per physician discretion as part of routine care. Patients will be followed prospectively for up to 3 years, with postbaseline assessments at months 1 and 3, and every 3 months thereafter. PLANNED OUTCOMES: Baseline data collected will include patient demographics, disease characteristics, and medication history. Patient adherence and persistence will be recorded alongside health-care resource utilization, and effectiveness of dupilumab will be assessed (clinician assessment) as per standard of care. Quality of life, asthma control, type 2 inflammatory comorbidities, work productivity, and physical activity limitation will be assessed. Incidence and severity of adverse events will be recorded. CONCLUSION: RAPID is the first global registry to characterize patients beginning dupilumab treatment for asthma in clinical practice and will expand on prior clinical studies by providing real-world data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04287621.

Ligelizumab improves angioedema, disease severity and quality-of-life in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Background: Disease burden is particularly high in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) patients with angioedema, and patients whose signs and symptoms are inadequately controlled by H1-antihistamines need new treatment options. Here we report an exploratory analysis, from the ligelizumab Phase 2b study, investigating angioedema occurrence in patients with CSU and describe the changes in angioedema following treatment with ligelizumab, omalizumab, or placebo. Methods: Data from the ligelizumab Phase 2b core (ligelizumab 72 mg, 240 mg, omalizumab 300 mg and placebo) and extension study (ligelizumab 240 mg) were used. Changes in Weekly Angioedema Activity Score (AAS7), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) among each time point were analyzed for each treatment arm. Results: From a total of 297 patients analyzed, 165 (55.6%) reported angioedema occurrence at baseline, with mean AAS7 ranging 30.6-42.2 across treatment arms. At Week 12 of the core study 87.5%, 84.6%, 75.0%, and 61.0% of patients were angioedema free for ligelizumab 72 mg, 240 mg, omalizumab 300 mg, and placebo arms, respectively. In CSU patients with angioedema at baseline, the largest change from baseline in AAS7 score was observed with ligelizumab 72 mg (-31.9) at week 16 in the core study. Patients with angioedema had a higher mean DLQI at baseline (14.9-16.1) vs. patients without angioedema (10.6-12.0). In patients with angioedema, low AAS7 was significantly associated with complete response on UAS7 (UAS7 = 0) and complete normalization of DLQI (DLQI 0-1). Conclusion: In the Phase 2b study, ligelizumab effectively reduced angioedema and urticaria symptoms, and improve health related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe CSU. Clinicaltrailsgov NCT number: NCT02477332; NCT02649218.

Predicting Clinical Remission of Chronic Urticaria Using Random Survival Forests: Machine Learning Applied to Real-World Data.

INTRODUCTION: The time required to reach clinical remission varies in patients with chronic urticaria (CU). The objective of this study is to develop a predictive model using a machine learning methodology to predict time to clinical remission for patients with CU. METHODS: Adults with ≥ 2 ICD-9/10 relevant CU diagnosis codes/CU-related treatment > 6 weeks apart were identified in the Optum deidentified electronic health record dataset (January 2007 to June 2019). Clinical remission was defined as ≥ 12 months without CU diagnosis/CU-related treatment. A random survival forest was used to predict time from diagnosis to clinical remission for each patient based on clinical and demographic features available at diagnosis. Model performance was assessed using concordance, which indicates the degree of agreement between observed and predicted time to remission. To characterize clinically relevant groups, features were summarized among cohorts that were defined based on quartiles of predicted time to remission. RESULTS: Among 112,443 patients, 73.5% reached clinical remission, with a median of 336 days from diagnosis. From 1876 initial features, 176 were retained in the final model, which predicted a median of 318 days to remission. The model showed good performance with a concordance of 0.62. Patients with predicted longer time to remission tended to be older with delayed CU diagnosis, and have more comorbidities, more laboratory tests, higher body mass index, and polypharmacy during the 12-month period before the first CU diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Applying machine learning to real-world data enabled accurate prediction of time to clinical remission and identified multiple relevant demographic and clinical variables with predictive value. Ongoing work aims to further validate and integrate these findings into clinical applications for CU management.

Dupilumab in children aged 6 months to younger than 6 years with uncontrolled atopic dermatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Current systemic treatments for children younger than 6 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis that is uncontrolled with topical therapies might have suboptimal efficacy and safety. Dupilumab is approved for older children and adults with atopic dermatitis and for other type 2 inflammatory conditions. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of dupilumab with concomitant low-potency topical corticosteroids in children aged 6 months to younger than 6 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial was conducted in 31 hospitals, clinics, and academic institutions in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 6 months to younger than 6 years, with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score 3-4) diagnosed according to consensus criteria of the American Academy of Dermatology, and an inadequate response to topical corticosteroids. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to subcutaneous placebo or dupilumab (bodyweight ≥5 kg to <15 kg: 200 mg; bodyweight ≥15 kg to <30 kg: 300 mg) every 4 weeks plus low-potency topical corticosteroids (hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream) for 16 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age, baseline bodyweight, and region. Patient allocation was done via a central interactive web response system, and treatment allocation was masked. The primary endpoint at week 16 was the proportion of patients with IGA score 0-1 (clear or almost clear skin). The key secondary endpoint (coprimary endpoint for the EU and EU reference market) at week 16 was the proportion of patients with at least a 75% improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75). Primary analyses were done in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned patients, as randomly assigned) and safety analyses were done in all patients who received any study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03346434. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2020, and Feb 12, 2021, 197 patients were screened for eligibility, 162 of whom were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (n=83) or placebo (n=79) plus topical corticosteroids. At week 16, significantly more patients in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group had IGA 0-1 (23 [28%] vs three [4%], difference 24% [95% CI 13-34]; p<0·0001) and EASI-75 (44 [53%] vs eight [11%], difference 42% [95% CI 29-55]; p<0·0001). Overall prevalence of adverse events was similar in the dupilumab group (53 [64%] of 83 patients) and placebo group (58 [74%] of 78 patients). Conjunctivitis incidence was higher in the dupilumab group (four [5%]) than the placebo group (none). No dupilumab-related adverse events were serious or led to treatment discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Dupilumab significantly improved atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms versus placebo in children younger than 6 years. Dupilumab was well tolerated and showed an acceptable safety profile, similar to results in older children and adults. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Phase 2 randomized clinical trial of astegolimab in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The binding of IL-33 to its receptor ST2 (alias of IL1RL1) leads to the release of inflammatory mediators and may play a role in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis. Astegolimab is a fully human, IgG2 mAb that binds to ST2 and inhibits IL-33 signaling. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of astegolimab in patients with atopic dermatitis. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study in which adults with chronic atopic dermatitis were randomized 1:1 to receive astegolimab 490 mg every 4 weeks or placebo, for 16 weeks. The primary outcome was the percentage of change from baseline to week 16 of the Eczema Area and Severity Index score. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients were enrolled in the study (placebo, n = 32; astegolimab, n = 33). The adjusted mean percentage of change from baseline to week 16 in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score was -51.47% for astegolimab compared with -58.24% for placebo, with a nonsignificant treatment difference of 6.77% (95% CI: -16.57-30.11; P = .5624). No differences were observed between treatment groups for secondary efficacy outcomes and in exploratory biomarkers (blood eosinophils, serum IL-5, serum CCL13). With the use of loading dose, pharmacokinetic exposure was sufficient from week 1. Astegolimab was well-tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that observed in previous clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atopic dermatitis, astegolimab did not show a significant difference compared to placebo for the primary or secondary outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 trials have assessed efficacy of abrocitinib versus placebo in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, a common immunoinflammatory skin disease. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib versus dupilumab. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-treatment, phase 3 trial enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who requir=ed systemic therapy or had inadequate response to topical medications. Participants were enrolled from 151 sites, located in Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the USA. These participants were then randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation to receive oral abrocitinib (200 mg per day) or subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg every 2 weeks) for 26 weeks. Participants were required to apply topical corticosteroids (medium or low potency), topical calcineurin inhibitors, or a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor to active lesion areas. Primary endpoints were response based on achieving a 4 point or higher improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4) at week 2 and a 90% or better improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-90) at week 4. Family-wise type 1 error was controlled via a sequential multiple-testing procedure (two sided, α=0·05). Randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention were included in the efficacy and safety analysis sets. This trial was completed on July 13, 2021 (NCT04345367). FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2020, and Dec 16, 2020, 940 patients were screened and 727 were enrolled (362 in the abrocitinib group and 365 in the dupilumab group). Compared with dupilumab, a larger proportion of patients treated with abrocitinib reached the primary outcomes, PP-NRS4 at week 2 (172 [48%] of 357, 95% CI 43·0-53·4 vs 93 [26%] of 364, 21·1-30·0; difference 22·6%, 15·8-29·5; p<0·0001), and EASI-90 at week 4 (101 [29%] of 354, 23·8-33·2 vs 53 [15%] of 364, 10·9-18·2; difference 14·1%, 8·2-20·0; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 268 (74%) of 362 patients treated with abrocitinib and by 239 (65%) of 365 patients treated with dupilumab. Two non-treatment-related deaths occurred in the abrocitinib group. INTERPRETATION: Abrocitinib 200 mg per day was more efficacious than dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis on background topical therapy in inducing early reductions of itch and atopic dermatitis disease signs. Both treatments were well tolerated over 26 weeks. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Patient-oriented measures for phase 3 studies of tralokinumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (ECZTRA 1, 2, and 3).

BACKGROUND: Tralokinumab, as monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), has exhibited marked efficacy through 52 weeks in phase 3 trials of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and additional efficacy in a long-term extension trial. Early changes in patient-reported symptoms have not been communicated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate early changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) across the ECZTRA 1, 2, and 3 tralokinumab trials. METHODS: Monotherapy data (ECZTRA 1 + 2) was pooled; ECZTRA 3 evaluated tralokinumab plus optional TCS. The PROs were assessed through the trials. RESULTS: A total of 1596 and 380 patients were randomized in ECZTRA 1 and 2 and ECZTRA 3, respectively. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Early separation from placebo was observed in percentage improvement in worst average daily pruritus numerical rating score (NRS) (week 1, ECZTRA 1 + 2; week 2, ECZTRA 3) and from day 2 in ECZTRA 1 and 2 daily data. More tralokinumab-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements (≥ 4 points) in NRS by week 2 (ECZTRA 1 + 2) or week 3 (ECZTRA 3) vs placebo. Improvements in eczema-related sleep NRS were seen within 2 weeks (week 1, ECZTRA 1 + 2; week 2, ECZTRA 3), supported by similar improvements in other sleep measures. Meaningful changes in Dermatology Life Quality Index were observed from week 2 (ECZTRA 1 + 2). Results were supported by numerical differences from placebo in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure total score (week 2, both data sets). CONCLUSION: Tralokinumab with or without TCS exhibited early and clinically meaningful improvements vs placebo in several PROs, which may be beneficial to patients because atopic dermatitis symptom relief is a key treatment concern for patients.

Biologic use and outcomes among adults with severe asthma treated by US subspecialists.

BACKGROUND: Multiple biologics are now available for severe asthma (SA) treatment and can improve outcomes for patients. However, few available data describe the real-world use and effectiveness of multiple approved biologics, including biologic switching, among subspecialists in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biologic use and associated exacerbation outcomes in a large cohort of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologics, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For enrolled patients, sites report asthma exacerbations and medication use starting 12 months before enrollment. For patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021, biologic use and exacerbation outcomes before and after biologic initiation are described. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 66% (n = 1832) were receiving biologics. The most used biologic (> 1 biologic use per patient allowed) was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), dupilumab (18%), and reslizumab (3%). Overall, 16% of patients had biologic switches, 13% had stops, and 89% had ongoing biologic use. Patients starting and switching biologics experienced a 58% (1.80 vs 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs 0.75 per patient-year) reduction in exacerbations, respectively (both P < .001), with a numerically greater reduction observed among those starting non-anti-immunoglobulin E biologics compared with anti-immunoglobulin E. CONCLUSION: Real-world starting and switching of biologic therapies for SA were associated with meaningful reductions in exacerbations. With increasing biologic options available, individualized approaches to therapy may improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Adolescents with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Results Through Week 52 from a Phase III Open-Label Extension Trial (LIBERTY AD PED-OLE).

BACKGROUND: For adolescent patients (aged ≥ 12 to < 18 years) with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab resulted in substantial clinical benefit compared with placebo, with an acceptable safety profile. However, long-term data on the approved dose regimens of dupilumab in adolescents with AD are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This open-label extension study (LIBERTY AD PED-OLE, NCT02612454) reports the long-term safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of dupilumab in adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD who had participated in dupilumab parent trials. METHODS: Patients enrolled under the original study protocol received subcutaneous dupilumab according to a weight-based regimen (2 or 4 mg/kg every week). Following protocol amendment, patients were switched to subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg every 4 weeks (q4w) irrespective of weight, and newly enrolled patients were started on dupilumab 300 mg q4w. Patients with an inadequate clinical response (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score of 0/1 was not reached) to the q4w regimen could be uptitrated to the approved dupilumab dose regimens of 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks (body weight < 60 or ≥ 60 kg, respectively). Patients whose IGA score of 0/1 was maintained continuously for a 12-week period after week 40 were discontinued from dupilumab, monitored for relapse, and re-initiated on dupilumab if required. RESULTS: Data for 294 patients (mean age 14.7 years) were analyzed, 102 (34.7%) of whom had completed the 52-week visit at the database lock. The dupilumab long-term safety profile was comparable to that seen in adults and consistent with the known safety profile. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild/moderate. By week 52, 42.7% of patients had an IGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear), and 93.1%, 81.2%, and 56.4%, respectively, had at least a 50%, 75%, or 90% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI). Most (70.9%) patients required uptitration to the approved dupilumab dose regimen. The proportions of uptitrated patients with an IGA score of 0/1 or 75% improvement in EASI increased over time, reaching 35.7% and 51.9%, respectively, 48 weeks after the first uptitration visit. By week 52, 29.4% of patients had clear/almost clear skin sustained for 12 weeks and had stopped medication; 56.7% relapsed and were subsequently re-initiated on treatment, with a mean time to re-initiation of 17.5 (± standard deviation 17.3) weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with results seen with short-term treatment, long-term treatment with dupilumab showed an acceptable safety profile while providing incremental clinical benefit with continued treatment over time. The high proportion of patients who needed uptitration because of inadequate response to q4w dosing supports the q2w dose regimen as optimal for this age group. Finally, the majority of patients who stopped medication after having clear/almost clear skin sustained over 12 weeks experienced disease recurrence, suggesting the need for continued dupilumab dosing to maintain efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02612454, NCT02407756, NCT03054428, and NCT03050151. INFOGRAPHIC: Video abstract: What is the long-term safety and efficacy profile in adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with the approved dupilumab dose regimen? (MP4 40,966 KB).

Atopic dermatitis, or eczema, is a common chronic skin disease that can cause intense and persistent itching and rashes. Atopic dermatitis remains a problem for many adolescent patients, even if they use a number of different treatments. Dupilumab is a newer treatment for atopic dermatitis. In short-term clinical studies, dupilumab improved the disease with acceptable safety. In this study, adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who had completed one of the short-term studies continued dupilumab treatment for 1 year. The patients started treatment with dupilumab once every 4 weeks. But if their atopic dermatitis did not improve sufficiently, they were given dupilumab every 2 weeks. Through a year of treatment, there were no unexpected side effects. The side effects that did occur were mild or moderate in severity and in most cases did not lead to interruption of treatment. Almost half of the patients achieved skin that was clear or almost clear of atopic dermatitis during the study. But their atopic dermatitis often returned if they stopped being treated, and about half of them needed to start treatment again. Most patients needed to be treated every 2 weeks. The positive effects of dupilumab generally increased the longer patients were treated.