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.).

Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation, has shown efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation and an elevated risk of exacerbation. Whether the findings would be confirmed in a second phase 3 trial was unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per microliter or higher to receive subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Key secondary end points, analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the changes from baseline in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52 and in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating better quality of life) total score at week 52. RESULTS: A total of 935 patients underwent randomization: 470 were assigned to the dupilumab group and 465 to the placebo group. As prespecified, the primary analysis was performed after a positive interim analysis and included all available data for the 935 participants, 721 of whom were included in the analysis at week 52. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06) with dupilumab and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) with placebo; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 with dupilumab (least-squares mean change, 139 ml [95% CI, 105 to 173]) as compared with placebo (least-squares mean change, 57 ml [95% CI, 23 to 91]), with a significant least-squares mean difference at week 12 of 82 ml (P<0.001) and at week 52 of 62 ml (P = 0.02). No significant between-group difference was observed in the change in SGRQ scores from baseline to 52 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups and consistent with the established profile of dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, dupilumab was associated with fewer exacerbations and better lung function than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; NOTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04456673.).

Dupilumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (LIBERTY-CSU CUPID): Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by recurrent pruritic wheals (hives) and/or angioedema. Patients with CSU could remain symptomatic despite standard-of-care H1 antihistamines (H1-AH) or anti-IgE (omalizumab) treatment. Dupilumab blocks IL-4/IL-13 signaling and is approved for multiple type 2/atopic indications. OBJECTIVE: We conducted two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials comparing dupilumab with placebo in patients with symptomatic CSU despite H1-AH. METHODS: In LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, patients were omalizumab-naive (n = 138, aged ≥6 years). In Study B, patients were omalizumab-intolerant/incomplete responders (n = 108, aged ≥12 years). The primary end point was either change from baseline over 7 days in the Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) or Itch Severity Score (ISS7) at week 24, with the other as a key secondary end point, depending on regional regulatory requirements. Studies were pooled for safety assessment. RESULTS: In Study A, UAS7 and ISS7 improved with dupilumab versus placebo (difference -8.5 [95% CI, -13.2 to -3.9; P = .0003] and -4.2 [95% CI, -6.6 to -1.8; P = .0005]). In Study B, tested at α = 0.043 after interim analysis, UAS7 improved (difference -5.8 [95% CI, -11.4 to -0.3; P = .0390]), with a numerical trend in ISS7 (difference -2.9 [95% CI, -5.7 to -0.07; nominal P = .0449, not significant]). Pooled safety data were consistent between dupilumab and placebo and with the known dupilumab safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab reduced urticaria activity by reducing itch and hives severity in omalizumab-naive patients with CSU uncontrolled with H1-AH. Although the primary end point for Study B was not met, dupilumab effects were small in patients who were omalizumab-intolerant/incomplete responders.

Immunomodulatory and clinical effects of receptor-interacting protein kinase 1 (RIPK1) inhibitor eclitasertib (SAR443122) in patients with severe COVID-19: a phase 1b, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting receptor-interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 1 could mitigate the devastating sequelae of the hyperinflammatory state observed in severe cases of COVID-19. This study explored the immunomodulatory and clinical effects of the receptor-interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 1 inhibitor SAR443122 (eclitasertib) in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this Phase 1b, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study (NCT04469621) a total of 82 patients were screened, of whom 68 patients were eligible and randomized (2:1) to receive eclitasertib 600 mg (300 mg twice daily) or placebo up to 14 days. Primary outcome was relative change in C-reactive protein from baseline to Day 7. Time to clinical improvement using 7-point ordinal scale, ventilator/respiratory failure-free days, change in SpO2/FiO2 ratio, and biomarkers of severe COVID-19 were explored. RESULTS: Geometric mean ratio (point estimate [90% confidence interval]) of the relative change from baseline in C-reactive protein with eclitasertib vs. placebo on Day 7 was 0.85 (0.49-1.45; p = 0.30). Median time to 50% decrease in C-reactive protein from baseline was 3 days vs. 5 days (p = 0.056) with eclitasertib vs. placebo. Median time to ≥ 2-point improvement on 7-point clinical symptoms scale was 8 days vs. 10 days with eclitasertib vs. placebo (p = 0.38). Mean ventilator/respiratory failure-free days, change in baseline-adjusted SpO2/FiO2 ratio, and clinical biomarkers showed consistent numerical improvements with eclitasertib vs. placebo. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and condition aggravated/worsened COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Eclitasertib was well tolerated with consistent trends toward more rapid resolution of inflammatory biomarkers and clinical improvement in severe COVID-19 patients than placebo. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04469621, first posted on clinicaltrials.gov on July 14, 2020.

Dupilumab treatment improves signs, symptoms, quality of life, and work productivity in patients with atopic hand and foot dermatitis: Results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite high disease burden, systemic treatment options for patients with atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis (H/F AD) are limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of dupilumab in H/F AD using specific instruments for assessing disease severity on hands and feet. METHODS: In this multicenter phase 3 trial, adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe H/F AD were randomized to dupilumab monotherapy (regimen approved for generalized AD), or matched placebo. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving Hand and Foot Investigator's Global Assessment score 0 or 1 at week 16. Secondary prespecified endpoints assessed the severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch, pain), quality of life, and sleep. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients (adults = 106, adolescents = 27) were randomized to dupilumab (n = 67) or placebo (n = 66). At week 16, significantly more patients receiving dupilumab (n = 27) than placebo (n = 11) achieved Hand and Foot Investigator's Global Assessment score 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003). All other prespecified endpoints were met. Safety was consistent with the known AD dupilumab profile. LIMITATIONS: Short-term, 16-week treatment period. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab monotherapy resulted in significant improvements across different domains of H/F AD with acceptable safety, supporting dupilumab as a systemic treatment approach for this often difficult to treat condition.