Oral Sebetralstat for On-Demand Treatment of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks.

BACKGROUND: Approved on-demand treatments for hereditary angioedema attacks need to be administered parenterally, a route of administration that is associated with delays in treatment or withholding of therapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, three-way crossover trial, we randomly assigned participants at least 12 years of age with type 1 or type 2 hereditary angioedema to take up to two oral doses of sebetralstat (300 mg or 600 mg) or placebo for an angioedema attack. The primary end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the beginning of symptom relief, defined as a rating of "a little better" on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ratings range from "much worse" to "much better") at two or more consecutive time points within 12 hours after the first administration of the trial agent. Key secondary end points, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, were a reduction in attack severity (an improved rating on the Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGI-S] scale, with ratings ranging from "none" to "very severe") at two or more consecutive time points within 12 hours and complete attack resolution (a rating of "none" on the PGI-S scale) within 24 hours. RESULTS: A total of 136 participants were assigned to one of six trial sequences, with 110 treating 264 attacks. The time to the beginning of symptom relief with the 300-mg dose and the 600-mg dose was faster than with placebo (P<0.001 and P = 0.001 for the two comparisons, respectively), with median times of 1.61 hours (interquartile range, 0.78 to 7.04), 1.79 hours (1.02 to 3.79), and 6.72 hours (1.34 to >12), respectively. The time to reduction in the attack severity with the 300-mg dose and the 600-mg dose was faster than with placebo (P = 0.004 and P = 0.003), with median times of 9.27 hours (interquartile range, 1.53 to >12), 7.75 hours (2.19 to >12), and more than 12 hours (6.23 to >12). The time to complete resolution was faster with the 300-mg and 600-mg doses than with placebo (P = 0.002 and P<0.001). The percentage of attacks with complete resolution within 24 hours was 42.5% with the 300-mg dose, 49.5% with the 600-mg dose, and 27.4% with placebo. Sebetralstat and placebo had similar safety profiles; no serious adverse events related to the trial agents were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Oral sebetralstat provided faster times to the beginning of symptom relief, reduction in attack severity, and complete attack resolution than placebo. (Funded by KalVista Pharmaceuticals; KONFIDENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05259917; EudraCT number, 2021-001226-21.).

Hereditary angioedema outcomes in US patients switched from injectable long-term prophylactic medication to oral berotralstat.

BACKGROUND: Berotralstat, a first-line, once-daily, oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor for long-term prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE), is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the safety, effectiveness, and impact on treatment satisfaction in patients who switched from injectable long-term prophylactics to oral berotralstat monotherapy (150 mg daily) at US sites in the international open-label APeX-S study. METHODS: APeX-S was an open-label, Phase II study of berotralstat conducted in 22 countries. Here, we focus on APeX-S patients enrolled at US sites who switched from injectable long-term prophylactics to berotralstat 150 mg once-daily monotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients discontinued lanadelumab (n = 21), subcutaneous C1 esterase inhibitor (n = 11), or intravenous C1 esterase inhibitor (n = 2) and switched to berotralstat 150 mg monotherapy. Vomiting, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract infection were the most common adverse events (each 11.8%). Mean monthly attack rates were consistently low after the switch to berotralstat. The mean (SEM) monthly attack rate was 0.29 (0.11) at Month 1, 0.48 (0.15) at Month 6, and 0.58 (0.23) at Month 12. The median attack rate was 0 attack/mo throughout 12 months of treatment. Improvements were observed in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication from baseline to Month 12 after the switch to berotralstat monotherapy, with the greatest improvements in convenience. CONCLUSION: The transition from injectable prophylactic medication to berotralstat was generally well tolerated. Patients switching to berotralstat monotherapy maintained good control of their HAE symptoms and reported improved treatment satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03472040.

Optimization of care for patients with hereditary angioedema living in rural areas.

BACKGROUND: People living in rural areas of the United States experience greater health inequality than individuals residing in urban or suburban locations and encounter several barriers to obtaining optimal health care. Health disparities are compounded for patients with rare diseases such as hereditary angioedema (HAE), an autosomal dominant genetic disorder characterized by recurrent, severe abdominal pain and life-threatening oropharyngeal or laryngeal swelling. OBJECTIVE: To explore the challenges of managing patients with HAE in rural areas and suggest possible improvements for optimizing care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for articles on patient care management, treatment challenges, rural health, and HAE. STUDY SELECTIONS: Relevant articles were selected and reviewed. RESULTS: Challenges in managing HAE in the rural setting were identified, including obtaining a diagnosis of HAE, easy access to a physician with expertise in HAE, continuity of care, availability of telemedicine services, access to approved HAE therapies, patient education, and economic barriers to treatment. Ways to improve HAE patient care in rural areas include health care provider recognition of the patient with undiagnosed HAE, development of individualized management plans, expansion of telemedicine, effective care at the local level, appropriate access to HAE medication, and increased awareness of patient support and advocacy groups. CONCLUSION: For patients with HAE living in rural areas, optimal care is complicated by health disparities. Given the scarcity with which these topics have been covered in the literature to date, it is intended that this article will serve as the impetus for a range of further initiatives focused on improving access to care.

A randomized trial of human C1 inhibitor prophylaxis in children with hereditary angioedema.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency or dysfunction have burdensome recurrent angioedema attacks. The safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) prophylaxis (intravenously administered) in patients aged 6-11 years were investigated. METHODS: Eligible patients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, crossover, phase 3 trial. After a 12-week baseline observation period (BOP), patients received 500 or 1000 U C1-INH, twice weekly, for 12 weeks before crossing over to the alternate dose for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was the monthly normalized number of angioedema attacks (NNA). HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQoL 5-dimensional descriptive system youth version and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). RESULTS: Twelve randomized patients had a median (range) age of 10.0 (7-11) years. Mean (SD) percentage reduction in monthly NNA from BOP was 71.1% (27.1%) with 500 U and 84.5% (20.0%) with 1000 U C1-INH. Mean (SD) within-patient difference (-0.4 [0.58]) for monthly NNA with both doses was significant (P = 0.035 [90% CI, -0.706 to -0.102]). Cumulative attack severity, cumulative daily severity, and number of acute attacks treated were reduced. No serious adverse events or discontinuations occurred. Mean EQ-VAS change from BOP to week 9 of treatment (500 U C1-INH, 10.4; 1000 U C1-INH, 21.6) was greater than the minimal important difference, indicating a meaningful HRQoL change. CONCLUSIONS: C1-INH prophylaxis was effective, safe, and well tolerated in children aged 6-11 years experiencing recurrent angioedema attacks. A post hoc analysis indicated a meaningful improvement in HRQoL with C1-INH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02052141.

Long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To review the criteria for long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE), describe how these criteria have evolved over time, and anticipate how criteria may change in the future with the availability of new C1-INH-HAE treatment options. DATA SOURCES: Treatment guidelines, consensus statements, and expert reviews. STUDY SELECTIONS: Manuscripts that described long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with C1-INH-HAE were selected. RESULTS: Historically, patients with C1-INH-HAE were considered to be candidates for long-term prophylaxis therapy if they had at least 1 attack per month, had at least 5 days of disability per month because of C1-INH-HAE, or did not sufficiently respond to on-demand treatment. More recently, guidelines and reviews state that thresholds of number of attacks or days of disability are arbitrary and that treatment plans should be individualized to the patient's needs. Furthermore, all patients should have a comprehensive management plan that is reviewed periodically and should have at least 2 doses of on-demand treatment available. Prophylaxis therapy should be discussed as a potential treatment option for each patient; however, the decision for its use will depend on the patient's individual needs and the course of their symptoms. CONCLUSION: The criteria for long-term prophylaxis therapy in C1-INH-HAE have changed with the recognition that treatments should be individualized to the patient's needs and with the availability of new medications that have more favorable benefit-risk profiles, are easier to use, and improve patients' quality of life.

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.

Preventing Hereditary Angioedema Attacks in Children Using Cinryze®: Interim Efficacy and Safety Phase 3 Findings.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease causing unpredictable and potentially life-threatening subcutaneous and submucosal edematous attacks. Cinryze® (Shire ViroPharma Inc., Lexington, MA, USA), a nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (C1-INH), is approved in Europe for the treatment, preprocedure prevention, and routine prophylaxis of HAE attacks, and for the routine prophylaxis of attacks in the USA. This phase 3 study assessed the safety and efficacy of 2 C1-INH doses in preventing attacks in children aged 6-11 years. METHODS: A randomized single-blind crossover study was initiated in March 2014. Results for the first 6 patients completing the study are reported here. After a 12-week qualifying observation period, patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 C1-INH doses, 500 or 1,000 U, every 3-4 days for 12 weeks and crossed over to the alternative dose for a second 12-week period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of angioedema attacks per month. RESULTS: Six females with HAE type I and a median age of 10.5 years received 2 doses of C1-INH (500 and 1,000 U). The mean (SD) difference in the number of monthly angioedema attacks between the baseline observation period and the treatment period was -1.89 (1.31) with 500 U and -1.89 (1.11) with 1,000 U. During the treatment periods, cumulative attack severity, cumulative daily severity, and the number of attacks needing acute treatment were lower. No serious adverse events or study drug discontinuations occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Interim findings from this study indicate that routine prevention with intravenous administration of C1-INH is efficacious, safe, and well tolerated in children ≥6 years of age.

Safety and efficacy of C1 esterase inhibitor for acute attacks in children with hereditary angioedema.

BACKGROUND: Human plasma-derived nanofiltered C1 esterase inhibitor (C1 INH-nf) is used to treat acute angioedema attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE), but data regarding use in children are sparse. METHODS: Patients 2 to <12 years of age, body weight ≥10 kg, with a diagnosis of HAE type I or II, were recruited for a multicenter open-label trial. Patients were recruited into 2 weight categories (10-25 kg, >25 kg). Each weight category included 2 dosing levels: C1 INH-nf (500 units [U], 1000 U) and C1 INH-nf (1000 U, 1500 U), respectively. Patients experiencing an angioedema attack were given a single intravenous dose. Primary efficacy end-point was the onset of unequivocal relief of the defining symptom within 4 h following initiation of C1 INH-nf treatment. RESULTS: Nine children were treated: 3 (10-25 kg) received 500 U; 3 (>25 kg) received 1000 U; and 3 (>25 kg) received 1500 U. The lower weight/higher dose category (10-25 kg, 1000 U) was not successfully enrolled. All patients completed the study. Most angioedema attacks (n = 5) were abdominal. All patients met the primary end-point; median time to unequivocal symptom relief was 0.5 (range: 0.25-2.5) h. Doses of C1 INH-nf ranged from 20.8 to 51.9 U/kg. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of a single angioedema attack with C1 INH-nf doses of 500 U (in patients 10-25 kg), 1000 U, and 1500 U (in patients >25 kg) were well tolerated. Doses of C1 INH-nf <1000 U may be appropriate in some pediatric patients.

Once-Daily Oral Berotralstat for Long-Term Prophylaxis of Hereditary Angioedema: The Open-Label Extension of the APeX-2 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Berotralstat is a first-line, once-daily oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor approved for prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks in patients 12 years or older. OBJECTIVE: This analysis examined the safety and effectiveness of long-term prophylaxis with berotralstat. METHODS: APeX-2 was a phase 3, parallel-group, multicenter trial in patients with HAE caused by C1-inhibitor deficiency (NCT03485911). Part 1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of 150 and 110 mg of berotralstat over 24 weeks. In part 2, berotralstat-treated patients continued the same treatment, and placebo-treated patients were re-randomized to 150 or 110 mg of berotralstat for 24 weeks. In part 3, all patients were treated with open-label berotralstat at 150 mg, which could be continued for up to an additional 4 years. In part 3, the primary endpoint was long-term safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included HAE attack rates and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients entered part 3. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 82.7% of patients, with most being mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, abdominal pain, arthralgia, coronavirus infection, and diarrhea. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 14.8% of patients, but none were serious. For patients who completed 96 weeks of berotralstat treatment (n = 70), the mean (standard error) change in attack rate from baseline was -2.21 (0.20) attacks/mo. Clinically meaningful improvements in QoL were also observed, with the largest improvements in the functioning domain. CONCLUSION: Berotralstat was generally well tolerated, provided rapid and sustained reductions in HAE attacks and improved QoL over 96 weeks.

Analysis of hereditary angioedema attacks requiring a second dose of ecallantide.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of acute attacks is critical in managing hereditary angioedema (HAE). Ecallantide, a plasma kallikrein inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of HAE attacks. Occasionally, a second dose is needed when treating attacks of HAE. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the characteristics of HAE attacks requiring a second dose (dose B) of ecallantide. METHODS: Data from all ecallantide clinical trials (EDEMA2, EDEMA4, and DX-88/19) that allowed an open-label dose B were included in this analysis. Patient and attack characteristics potentially predictive of dose B after ecallantide were analyzed by logistic regression. A multivariate model was built using a backward selection process, incorporating variables from the univariate model with P < .20 and removing factors with the highest P value until only significant (P < .05) factors remained. RESULTS: The analysis included 732 ecallantide-treated HAE attacks in 179 patients. Dose B was required in 88 attacks (12.0%), most (80.5%) for incomplete response. By attack location, 31 of 325 abdominal attacks (9.5%), 17 of 158 laryngeal attacks (10.8%), and 40 of 242 peripheral attacks (16.5%) required dose B. On the basis of the univariate analysis, baseline severity (odds ratio = 1.33, P = .15) and peripheral attack (odds ratio = 1.80, P = .01) were identified as potential predictive factors; abdominal attacks had an inverse correlation (odds ratio = 0.64, P = .055). However, the multivariate analysis identified only peripheral attacks as statistically significantly correlated (P < .05) with dose B requirement. CONCLUSION: A single, 30-mg dose of ecallantide was effective for most HAE attacks (88.0%). Patients with peripheral attacks of HAE were more likely to require a second dose of ecallantide after 4 hours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: not applicable for EDEMA2 (trial was conducted before registration requirements were implemented), NCT00457015 for EDEMA4, and NCT00456508 for DX-88/19.

Efficacy and safety of ecallantide in treatment of recurrent attacks of hereditary angioedema: open-label continuation study.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disorder characterized by recurrent attacks of potentially life-threatening edema. The plasma kallikrein inhibitor ecallantide is approved for treatment of acute HAE attacks. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of ecallantide for treatment of multiple HAE episodes in the DX-88/19 (continuation) study. Patients received 30 mg of subcutaneous ecallantide for acute HAE attack symptoms, with no limit on number of episodes treated. Primary end point was change in patient-reported mean symptom complex severity (MSCS) score at 4 hours. Additional end points included change in MSCS score at 24 hours, treatment outcome score (TOS) at 4 and 24 hours, and time to response. Safety parameters included adverse events. Statistical analyses were conducted on qualifying treatment episodes (those with ≥12 patients). One hundred forty-seven patients received treatment for 625 episodes; analyses were conducted through 13 treatment episodes. Across 13 episodes at 4 hours, mean change in MSCS score ranged from -1.04 to -1.36, and mean TOSs ranged from 56.2 to 79.8. Median time to onset of sustained improvement ranged from 59 to 113 minutes. There was no indication of reduced efficacy with repeated ecallantide use. No new safety signals were detected. Eight patients (5.4%) reported potential hypersensitivity reactions, six of whom met the definition of anaphylaxis based on National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria. Ecallantide is effective for acute recurrent HAE attacks and maintains its efficacy and safety during multiple treatment episodes in patients with HAE. Potential hypersensitivity reactions were consistent with prior reports.

Patient and caregiver perspectives on transitioning to oral prophylaxis in the emerging hereditary angioedema treatment landscape.

This report describes the successful transition of two familial patients with HAE from injectable to oral prophylaxis without tapering prior therapy or employing a complex transition protocol.

NAVIGATE I: Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial of the Exhalation Delivery System With Fluticasone for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common, high-morbidity chronic inflammatory disease, and patients often experience suboptimal outcomes with current medical treatment. The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) may improve care by increasing superior/posterior intranasal corticosteroid deposition. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of EDS-FLU versus EDS-placebo in patients with nasal polyps (NP). Coprimary end points were change in nasal congestion and polyp grade. Key secondary end points were Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale-Revised (MOS Sleep-R). Other prespecified end points included all 4 cardinal symptoms of NP, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI), and key indicators for surgical intervention. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, EDS-placebo-controlled, multicenter study. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-three subjects with NP and moderate-severe congestion/obstruction, most with history of corticosteroid use (94.4%) and/or prior surgery (60.4%), were randomized to EDS-FLU 93 µg, 186 µg, or 372 µg or EDS-placebo twice daily (BID) for 24 weeks (16 double-blind + 8 single-arm extension with EDS-FLU 372 µg BID). RESULTS: All EDS-FLU doses produced significant improvement in both coprimary end points ( P < .05) and in SNOT-22 total score ( P ≤ .005). EDS-FLU significantly improved all 4 cardinal symptoms of NP ( P < .05), including congestion/obstruction, facial pain/pressure, rhinorrhea/post-nasal drip, and hyposmia/anosmia. Approximately 80% of subjects reported improvement with EDS-FLU, with 65% reporting "much" or "very much" improvement by week 16. Adverse events were generally local in nature and similar to other intranasal steroids studied for similar durations in similar populations, with the most common being epistaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with NP (CRSwNP) who were symptomatic despite high rates of prior intranasal steroid use and/or surgery, EDS-FLU produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements compared to EDS-placebo in multiple subjective and objective outcomes (symptoms, SNOT-22, RSDI, SF-36, PGIC, and NP grade), including all 4 cardinal symptoms of CRSwNP.