Real-world effectiveness of dupilumab versus benralizumab and mepolizumab.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, this real-world study compared the effectiveness of dupilumab, benralizumab, andmepolizumab in reducing exacerbations and systemic corticosteroid (SCS) prescriptions among patients with asthma. METHODS: Patients (12 years old) who initiated dupilumab, benralizumab, or mepolizumab (index) between November 2018 and September 2020 were identified by using electronic medical record data. Subjects were included if they had greater than or equal to 12 months of data before and after the index date and two or more severe asthma-related exacerbations before the index date. Differences in baseline characteristics were addressed by using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). Pairwisecomparisons between dupilumab and benralizumab, or mepolizumab were conducted by using negative binomial regression, adjusting for baseline rates and unbalance characteristics (greater than or equal to 10% standardized differences) after IPTW. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 1737 subjects met all criteria: 825 dupilumab, 461 benralizumab, and 451 mepolizumab initiators.In the postindex period, dupilumab was associated with a 24% and 28% significant reduction in the risk of severe asthmaexacerbations versus benralizumab (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.67-0.86)] and mepolizumab(IRR 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63-0.82]), respectively. In addition, dupilumab treatment significantly reduced SCS prescriptionsby 16% and 25% versus benralizumab and mepolizumab, respectively (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study represents one of the largest real-world comparisons of biologics (dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for asthma in the United States to date. This analysis shows that the use of dupilumab was associated with a significantly greater reduction in both severe asthma exacerbations and SCS prescriptions compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab.

How to diagnose IgE-mediated food allergy.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy is an immune response, typically to a food protein. Accurate diagnosis reduces unnecessary dietary restrictions and economic and psychological burden on patients and caregivers but relies on a rigorous clinical history, specific IgE diagnostic tests and, where needed, oral food challenge. Increased awareness is needed around which patients to test for IgE-mediated food allergy, as well as terms commonly associated with IgE-mediated food allergy testing, in order to optimise patient diagnosis and management. Herein, we describe approaches to diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy, appropriate interpretation of results and risks of overtesting.

Sublingual Tablet Immunotherapy Improves Quality of Life in Adults With Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis can negatively impact many aspects of quality of life (QoL). The efficacy and safety of standardized quality (SQ) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets have been confirmed across large clinical trials in adults with grass, tree, ragweed, and house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: This pooled analysis investigates whether the reduction in symptom burden found across the clinical trials is supported by improvements in QoL. METHODS: A total of 11 phase II/III randomized placebo-controlled trials across the SQ grass, tree, ragweed, and HDM SLIT tablets (grass: N = 3179; ragweed: N = 767; tree: N = 634; HDM: N = 2221) were included. QoL was assessed using the standardized Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), with the exception of 3 grass trials, which used the nonstandardized version. The overall RQLQ scores were expressed as a mean of 7 domains. In the pooled analysis, treatment was used as fixed effect; and the trial, and the interaction between region/country and trial as random effects. RESULTS: The pooled analysis showed consistent and statistically significant improvements in overall RQLQ scores across all 4 SQ SLIT tablets versus placebo (pooled estimate [95% CI], P value-grass: -0.20 [-0.28 to -0.12], P < .001; tree: -0.42 [-0.58 to -0.26], P < .001; ragweed: -0.36 [-0.55 to -0.17], P < .001; HDM: -0.28 [-0.39 to -0.17], P < .001). Furthermore, significant improvements versus placebo for all 4 SQ SLIT tablets were seen across the 7 individual domains. CONCLUSIONS: The proven efficacy of SQ SLIT tablets to reduce symptoms across 4 of the most common respiratory allergens is supported by concurrent significant improvements in RQLQ scores overall and for all 7 domains.

Real-world effectiveness of dupilumab in patients with asthma: Findings from the US ADVANTAGE study.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is approved as an add-on maintenance therapy for patients (≥6 years) with moderate-to-severe asthma. Better understanding of real-world effectiveness is needed. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab in asthma management. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients (≥12 years of age) diagnosed with asthma, initiating dupilumab between November 2018 and September 2020. The study used a US electronic medical record database (TriNetX Dataworks, Cambridge, Massachusetts). Asthma exacerbation rates before and after the initiation of dupilumab were analyzed using generalized estimating equations models with Poisson probabilistic link to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on previous exacerbation data, eosinophil levels, history of atopic dermatitis or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, previous use of biologics, and presence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). RESULTS: A total of 2400 patients initiating dupilumab met all study criteria. After initiation of dupilumab, risk of asthma exacerbation was reduced by 44% (IRR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57; P = <0.0001) and systemic corticosteroid prescriptions by 48% (IRR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.48, 0.56; P = <0.0001) compared with those before initiation of dupilumab. Adjustment for COVID-19 showed a greater reduction in asthma exacerbations (IRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.55; P = <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Current real-world efficacy evidence indicates that dupilumab reduces asthma exacerbations and total systemic corticosteroid prescriptions in clinical practice. The effectiveness of dupilumab was observed independent of exacerbation history, eosinophil levels, or COVID-19 impact.

A practical guide to prescribing sublingual immunotherapy tablets in North America for pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an injection-free allergy immunotherapy option.

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is a common disease that affects individuals of all ages. Pediatricians may be the first (and only) point of care for children with ARC. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a convenient at-home, injection-free allergy immunotherapy option that can be used for the treatment of ARC. This paper provides a practical guide for pediatricians to aid in prescribing SLIT-tablets to children with ARC in North America. Topics include a summary of the available SLIT-tablets and their efficacy and safety, guidance on when SLIT-tablets are an appropriate option, and how to diagnose ARC and identify culprit allergens. Practical guidance is also provided through a proposed decision tree, a prescribing checklist and prescribing procedures, and suggested follow-up assessments.

Interdisciplinary collaboration in the diagnosis and management of chronic cough: the role and importance of primary care providers.

Chronic cough (CC) is associated with many conditions, so identifying contributing causes poses a diagnostic challenge. However, guidelines written for US physicians do not explicitly outline suggested roles for primary care providers (PCPs) in the approach to patients with CC, including refractory or unexplained CC. The objective of this review is to describe the role of PCPs in the diagnosis and treatment of CC in adults. This narrative review draws upon literature (identified via a PubMed search performed January 9, 2023, using primary care/disease state-related terms) and expertise from specialist physicians to provide recommendations for CC management in primary care. Cough is one of the top reasons patients seek care from PCPs; accordingly, PCPs are often the first physicians to conduct workup and initiate treatment. Patients with CC often experience a burdensome cough that lasts for years, have high healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), undergo multiple or failed treatment trials, and have limited success finding an etiology. Although specialist referral may be needed for many diagnostic tests, initial aspects of CC workup and management should be completed in primary care. Often more accessible than specialists, real-world evidence on HCRU suggests PCPs are important stakeholders in diagnosing and managing CC, including during initial workup and treatment for the most common causes of CC (i.e. upper-airway cough syndrome, asthma, noneosinophilic asthmatic bronchitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease). Thorough workup at the primary care level may facilitate earlier identification of CC cause(s), improving patient journey to diagnosis and management.

Innovations in the treatment of anaphylaxis: A review of recent data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current standard of first-line emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular (IM) epinephrine, mostly administered through epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) in the outpatient setting. However, undercarriage and underuse of EAIs are common, and delayed epinephrine use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals have expressed a strong desire for small, needle-free devices and products that would offer improved carriage, ease of use, and more convenient, less invasive routes of epinephrine administration. Novel mechanisms of epinephrine administration are under investigation to help address several recognized EAI limitations. This review explores innovative nasal and oral products under investigation for the outpatient emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. FINDINGS: Human studies of epinephrine administered through nasal epinephrine spray, a nasal powder spray, and a sublingual film have been conducted. Data from these studies indicate promising pharmacokinetic results comparable to those of the standard of outpatient emergency care (0.3-mg EAI) and syringe and needle IM epinephrine administration. Several products have shown maximum plasma concentration values higher than those of the 0.3-mg EAI and manual IM injection, although it remains unclear whether this has clinical relevancy in patient outcomes. Generally, these modalities show comparable time to maximum concentrations. Pharmacodynamic changes observed with these products are comparable to or more robust than those seen with EAI and manual IM injection. SUMMARY: Given comparable or superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results and safety of innovative epinephrine therapies to those of current standards of care, US Food and Drug Administration approval of these products may help address numerous barriers that EAIs present. The ease of use and carriage and favorable safety profiles of needle-free treatments may make them an attractive alternative to patients and caregivers, potentially addressing injection fears, needle-based safety risks, and other reasons for lack of or delayed use.

Demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data from 2 global, phase 3 trials of chronic cough.

BACKGROUND: The current characterization of patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC and UCC, respectively) primarily stems from relatively small clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To report the baseline medical history and clinical characteristics of individuals with RCC or UCC who were enrolled in COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, 2 large, global, phase 3 trials of gefapixant, a P2 × 3-receptor antagonist. METHODS: Adults with a chronic cough lasting for more than 1 year, diagnosis of RCC or UCC, and score greater than 40 mm on a 100-mm cough severity visual analog scale at both screening and baseline were eligible for enrollment. Demographics, medical history, and cough characteristics were collected at baseline. Cough-related measures included objective cough frequency, cough severity visual analog scale, Leicester Cough Questionnaire, and Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire. The data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 2044 participants, 75% were women; mean age was 58 years, and mean cough duration was approximately 11 years. Among all participants, 73% were previously diagnosed with asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or upper airway cough syndrome. The mean Leicester Cough Questionnaire total score was 10.4, with domain scores reflecting impaired cough-specific quality of life across physical, psychological, and social domains. The mean Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire score was 39.6, with some of the most burdensome reported items being consistent with features of cough-reflex hypersensitivity. Participant characteristics and cough burden were comparable across geographic regions. CONCLUSION: Participants with RCC or UCC had characteristics consistent with published demographics associated with chronic cough. These data reflect a global population with burdensome cough of long duration and substantial impairment to quality of life. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: COUGH-1, NCT03449134 (https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03449134); COUGH-2, NCT03449147 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03449147).

Proposed solutions by the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and advocacy experts to address racial disparities in atopic dermatitis and food allergy.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergies are more prevalent and more severe in people with skin of color than White individuals. The American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) sought to understand the effects of racial disparities among patients with skin of color with AD and food allergies. The ACAAI surveyed its members (N = 200 completed), conducted interviews with health care providers and advocacy leaders, and hosted a roundtable to explore the challenges of diagnosis and management of AD and food allergies in people with skin of color and to discuss potential solutions. Most of the survey respondents (68%) agreed that racial disparities make it difficult for people with skin of color to receive adequate treatment for AD and food allergies. The interviews and roundtable identified access to care, burden of costs, policies and infrastructure that limit access to safe foods and patient education, and inadequate research involving people with skin of color as obstacles to care. Proposed solutions included identifying ways to recruit more people with skin of color into clinical trials and medical school, educating health care providers about diagnosis and treating AD and food allergy in people with skin of color, improving access to safe foods, creating and disseminating culturally appropriate materials for patients, and working toward longer appointment times for patients who need them. Challenges in AD and food allergy in persons with skin of color were identified by the ACAAI members. Solutions to these challenges were proposed to inspire actions to mitigate racial disparities in AD and food allergy.

Dupilumab Efficacy in Patients With Uncontrolled or Oral Corticosteroid-Dependent Allergic and Nonallergic Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 cytokines IL-4/IL-5/IL-13 play an important role in pathogenesis of type 2 conditions, including asthma. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for IL-4/IL-13, inhibiting signaling. In phase 2b (P2B) (NCT01854047) and phase 3 VENTURE (NCT02528214), dupilumab reduced annualized severe exacerbation rates (AER), improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and was generally well tolerated in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe, or oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent severe asthma. OBJECTIVE: The post hoc assessment of dupilumab efficacy versus placebo in P2B and VENTURE in patients stratified by allergic status. METHODS: Allergic asthma was defined as total serum IgE ≥30 IU/mL and ≥1 perennial aeroallergen-specific IgE ≥0.35 kU/L at baseline. AER, prebronchodilator (BD) FEV1, FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio, asthma control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire), health-related quality of life (HRQoL; Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), type 2 biomarkers, specific IgE, and OCS reduction (VENTURE only) were assessed. RESULTS: In patients with allergic asthma, dupilumab (P2B: pooled 200/300 mg; VENTURE: 300 mg) every 2 weeks versus placebo reduced AER (P2B: -60%, P < .01; VENTURE: -72%, P < .001), and, in P2B, increased pre-BD FEV1 (P < .01) and FEV1/FVC (P < .05). In both studies, dupilumab significantly improved asthma control and HRQoL and reduced most type 2 biomarkers. Dupilumab significantly reduced OCS use in VENTURE. Similar benefits were observed in patients without evidence of allergic asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab significantly reduced AER and improved lung function, asthma control, and HRQoL in patients with or without evidence of allergic asthma.

Extrapolating Evidence-Based Medicine of AIT Into Clinical Practice in the United States.

Allergy/immunology specialists in the United States prescribing allergy immunotherapy (AIT) have placed a heavy value on practical experience and anecdotal evidence rather than research-based evidence. With the extensive research on AIT conducted in the last few decades, the time has come to better implement evidence-based medicine (EBM) for AIT. The goal of this review was to critically assess EBM for debated concepts in US AIT practice for respiratory allergies in the context and quality of today's regulatory standards. Debated topics reviewed were the efficacy and safety of AIT in various subgroups (eg, polyallergic patients, older patients, patients with asthma, and pregnant women), diagnosis topics (eg, skin prick test vs allergen-specific serum IgE, factors affecting skin prick tests, use of nasal or conjunctival allergen challenges, and telemedicine for diagnosis), and dosing topics (eg, optimal dosing for subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy tablets, US liquid allergen extract history, duration of treatment, and biomarkers of efficacy). In addition, EBM for patient-centered AIT issues (eg, adherence, use of practice guidelines, and pharmacoeconomics) and the approach to implementation of AIT EBM in future clinical practice were addressed. The EBM for each concept was briefly summarized, and when possible, a practical, concise recommendation was given.

Pediatric sublingual allergen immunotherapy.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) offers an important therapeutic modality in the management of children with respiratory allergies. Along with subcutaneous immunotherapy, these modalities are the only selections that have shown not merely relief of symptoms but also disease-modifying activity. SLIT can be given as either a dissolvable tablet (SLIT-T) or liquid drops (SLIT-D). In studies that examined the efficacy and safety in allergic rhinitis and asthma, SLIT-T and SLIT-D both show efficacy in reducing symptoms and the need for medication, although it seems that SLIT-T may show a better response. Almost all SLIT-D efficacy studies are with single allergens. There are virtually no data on the efficacy of mixing unrelated allergens in the same prescription. Both SLIT-T and SLIT-D treatments are safe, with the most common adverse effects being local ones, such as oral pruritus and mouth irritation, which tend to be mild and short lived. Studies that assess the role of SLIT in the prevention of new sensitizations and asthma in the pediatric population are insufficient and of mixed results; therefore, no conclusions can be made. In the treatment of other pediatric conditions, such as food allergy and atopic dermatitis, there are few studies that assessed if, and the degree of, the benefit with SLIT. In determining if SLIT should be prescribed for the pediatric patient, there is a need for shared decision-making to allow the older child and parents or caregivers to understand the pros and cons, and the costs of all the options and relate their values and preferences to the physician.

Rapid and Continuing Improvements in Nasal Symptoms with Dupilumab in Patients with Severe CRSwNP.

Purpose: In the phase 3 SINUS-24 (NCT02912468) and SINUS-52 (NCT02898454) studies in adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), dupilumab significantly improved the co-primary endpoints of change from baseline to Week 24 in nasal polyp score (NPS) and nasal congestion/obstruction (NC) vs placebo on background intranasal corticosteroids (standard of care [SOC]). This post hoc analysis of SINUS-24/-52 investigated the direction and magnitude of within-patient change in these endpoints over time. Methods: NPS (scale 0-8) was assessed at Weeks 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, and 52 in SINUS-52 and Weeks 8, 16, and 24 in SINUS-24. Daily patient-reported NC scores (0 [no symptoms]-3 [severe symptoms]) were averaged over 28 days. Within-patient changes from baseline were assessed through Week 24 in pooled SINUS-24/-52 (n = 438/286 dupilumab/SOC) and through Week 52 in SINUS-52 (n = 150/153). Results: In SINUS-52, NPS improved in 70.0% of dupilumab-treated patients at Week 4 vs 31.8% with SOC (odds ratio [OR] 5.2 [95% confidence interval 3.1-8.8]) and 78.7% vs 28.2% at Week 52 (OR 10.6 [6.0-18.7]) (all p < 0.0001). NC improved in 73.3% of dupilumab-treated patients at Week 4 vs 46.7% with SOC (OR 3.2 [2.0-5.3]) and 86.9% vs 50.7% at Week 52 (OR 6.4 [3.5-11.5]) (all p < 0.0001). Clinically meaningful (≥1 point) improvements in NPS occurred in 55.7% and 72.3% of dupilumab-treated patients at Weeks 4 and 52, respectively, vs 16.9% and 16.2% with SOC. Clinically meaningful (≥1 point) improvements in NC occurred in 16.7% and 67.6% of dupilumab-treated patients at Weeks 4 and 52, respectively, vs 3.9% and 20.8% with SOC. At Week 52, NPS worsening from baseline was observed in 5.7% of dupilumab-treated patients vs 40.1% with SOC and NC worsening in 2.1% vs 20.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Dupilumab provided rapid, continuing, and clinically relevant improvements over time in NPS and NC in most patients with severe CRSwNP in the SINUS studies.

Determining the minimal important differences in the RQLQ score with grass and tree allergy immunotherapy versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy.

BACKGROUND: Pollen from grasses and trees can trigger allergic rhinitis (AR), where the symptoms and associated consequences can negatively affect quality of life (QoL). The Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) is frequently used in clinical trials of AR to assess QoL. To help interpret RQLQ data, the minimal important difference (MID) can be used to assess whether a mean difference in QoL between treatment groups is clinically meaningful. In seasonal allergy, an MID differs according to the allergen, pollen exposure, symptom severity, patient age and treatment; the same MID cannot be applied to all scenarios. METHODS: Using data from four Phase III clinical trials of SQ sublingual immunotherapy-tablets in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy, between-group MIDs were derived for the RQLQ in grass pollen allergy (during the peak [n = 501] and entire [n = 514] pollen seasons), and in tree pollen allergy (during the birch [n = 516] and tree [n = 518] pollen seasons), using anchor-based methodology, supported by distribution-based methods. RESULTS: For grass pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.22 for the entire pollen season (n = 343) and 0.10 for the peak pollen season (n = 335). For tree pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.26 for the tree pollen season (n = 306) and 0.16 for the birch pollen season (n = 305) (representative of peak season). Distribution-based derived MIDs were supportive of the anchor-based values. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has derived between-group MIDs specific to the trial populations evaluated and to the conditions under which the data were obtained, and highlights the need for a range of MIDs to reflect the unique nature of seasonal allergic disease.

The Role of Cetirizine in the Changing Landscape of IV Antihistamines: A Narrative Review.

Since 1955, the only available H1 antihistamines for intravenous administration have been first-generation formulations and, of those, only intravenously administered (IV) diphenhydramine is still approved in the USA. Orally administered cetirizine hydrochloride, a second-generation H1 antihistamine, has been safely used over-the-counter for many years. In 2019, IV cetirizine was approved for the treatment of acute urticaria. In light of this approval, this narrative review discusses the changing landscape of IV antihistamines for the treatment of histamine-mediated conditions. Specifically, IV antihistamines will be discussed as a treatment option for acute urticaria and angioedema, as premedication to prevent infusion reactions related to anticancer agents and other biologics, and as an adjunct treatment for anaphylaxis and other allergic reactions. Before the development of IV cetirizine, randomized controlled trials of IV antihistamines for these indications were lacking. Three randomized controlled trials have been conducted with IV cetirizine versus IV diphenhydramine in the ambulatory care setting. A phase 3 trial of IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 262 adults who presented to the urgent care/emergency department with acute urticaria requiring antihistamines. For the primary efficacy endpoint, defined as change from baseline in a 2-h patient-rated pruritus score, non-inferiority of IV cetirizine to IV diphenhydramine was demonstrated (score - 1.6 vs - 1.5, respectively; 95% CI - 0.1, 0.3). Compared with IV diphenhydramine, IV cetirizine demonstrated fewer adverse effects including less sedation, a significantly shorter length of stay in the treatment center, and fewer returns to the treatment center at 24 and 48 h. Similar findings were demonstrated in another phase 2 acute urticaria trial and in a phase 2 trial assessing IV cetirizine for pretreatment for infusion reactions in the oncology/immunology setting. IV cetirizine is associated with similar patient outcomes, fewer adverse effects, and increased treatment center efficiency than IV diphenhydramine.

Efficacy of Inhaled Ciclesonide for Outpatient Treatment of Adolescents and Adults With Symptomatic COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly used in treating severe COVID-19. However, the role of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate disease is less clear. Objective: To determine the efficacy of the inhaled steroid ciclesonide in reducing the time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms among nonhospitalized participants with symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 10 centers throughout the US and assessed the safety and efficacy of a ciclesonide metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for treating nonhospitalized participants with symptomatic COVID-19 infection who were screened from June 11, 2020, to November 3, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ciclesonide MDI, 160 µg per actuation, for a total of 2 actuations twice a day (total daily dose, 640 µg) or placebo for 30 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chills, feeling feverish, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, and new loss of taste or smell) by day 30. Secondary end points included subsequent emergency department visits or hospital admissions for reasons attributable to COVID-19. Results: A total of 413 participants were screened and 400 (96.9%) were enrolled and randomized (197 [49.3%] in the ciclesonide arm and 203 [50.7%] in the placebo arm; mean [SD] age, 43.3 [16.9] years; 221 [55.3%] female; 2 [0.5%] Asian, 47 [11.8%] Black or African American, 3 [0.8%] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 345 [86.3%] White, and 1 multiracial individuals [0.3%]; 172 Hispanic or Latino individuals [43.0%]). The median time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms was 19.0 days (95% CI, 14.0-21.0) in the ciclesonide arm and 19.0 days (95% CI, 16.0-23.0) in the placebo arm. There was no difference in resolution of all symptoms by day 30 (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.84-1.97). Participants who were treated with ciclesonide had fewer subsequent emergency department visits or hospital admissions for reasons related to COVID-19 (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.85). No participants died during the study. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that ciclesonide did not achieve the primary efficacy end point of reduced time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04377711.

Review of efficacy of ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma in children.

Background: Ciclesonide (CIC) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma in patients ages ≥ 12 years. The prodrug aspect of CIC is associated with a safety profile that may make it ideal for children. Objective: The objective was to summarize efficacy results from the eight phase III, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials in children with asthma conducted during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four trials compared CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo. Two trials compared CIC 160 µg/day with fluticasone propionate 200 µg/day, one trial compared CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with fluticasone 200 µg/day, and one trial compared CIC 160 µg/day with budesonide 400 µg/day. Results: The primary end point was met by at least two CIC doses versus placebo in the trials in which the primary end point was the change from baseline in lung function outcome (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] % predicted or morning peak expiratory flow [PEF]). A trial that compared CIC with placebo did not meet the primary end point of superiority in time-to-first severe wheeze exacerbation or lack of improvement. The primary end point of noninferiority to the active control (fluticasone or budesonide) in the change from baseline in a lung function outcome (FEV1, morning PEF, evening PEF) was met with the CIC 160-µg dose in all active control trials. CIC generally demonstrated statistically significant improvements in forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of forced vital capacity, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and asthma control when compared with placebo and noninferiority for these outcomes compared with fluticasone or budesonide. Conclusion: In children with asthma, once-daily CIC significantly improved large and small airway function, asthma symptoms, and asthma control, and reduced rescue medication use compared with placebo. CIC was comparable with other ICS used to treat asthma in children, which demonstrated its worth for the pediatric population.

Safety of ciclesonide in children with asthma: A review of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Parental concerns about the adverse effects of asthma medications can lead to nonadherence and uncontrolled asthma in children. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a prodrug, with low oropharyngeal deposition and bioavailability that may minimize the risk of local and systemic adverse effects. CIC is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for asthma in children ages ≥ 12 years. Objective: To summarize safety results from the 13 phase II or III randomized controlled trials conducted in children with asthma during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four 12- to 24-week trials compared the safety of once-daily CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo; four 12-week trials compared the safety of CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with either fluticasone or budesonide; one 12-month trial compared the long-term safety of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with fluticasone; one 12-month trial compared growth velocity of CIC 40 or 160 µg/day with placebo; and three cross-over trials compared short-term growth velocity and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis effects of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo or fluticasone. Results: In all, 4399 children were treated with CIC. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) was similar among the CIC doses and between CIC and placebo in short-term studies and between CIC and fluticasone in the long-term safety study. No CIC-related serious AEs were reported in any study. The incidence of treatment-related oral candidiasis was low and similar between CIC (≤0.5%) and placebo (≤0.7%) or active controls (≤0.5%) in the short-term studies. There was no clinically relevant HPA axis suppression or reduction in growth velocity associated with CIC. Conclusion: Data from 13 studies demonstrate that CIC is associated with low rates of oropharyngeal AEs, with no indication of clinically relevant systemic effects in children with asthma. The favorable safety profile and demonstrated improvements in asthma control make CIC an ideal inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma in children.