Efficacy and safety of ligelizumab in adults and adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results of two phase 3 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies. METHODS: PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab. INTERPRETATION: In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma.

The safety and clinical benefit of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus budesonide alone in children.

Few studies have evaluated inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist combination therapy in asthmatic children. This study was designed to evaluate the safety (primary) and clinical benefits (secondary) of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus budesonide dry powder inhaler (DPI) in children with persistent asthma. This was a 26-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label U.S. study of 187 children 6-11 years of age previously receiving ICS. After 1 week of usual ICS therapy, subjects received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 micrograms x 2 inhalations (320/9 micrograms; n = 124) or budesonide DPI 200 micrograms x 2 inhalations (400 micrograms [320 micrograms delivered ex-mouthpiece]; n = 63). Budesonide/formoterol and budesonide were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events (AEs) (84.6% and 85.7%, respectively), most of mild or moderate intensity. Treatment-related AE incidence was low (5.4%) and similar across groups (budesonide/formoterol, 4.9%; budesonide, 6.3%). No clinically important treatment differences were observed for 12-lead electrocardiograms, hematology, serum glucose and potassium, and 24-hour urinary cortisol. Compared with budesonide, budesonide/formoterol decreased health care use (urgent care visits and interference with daily activities [child] or work [caregiver]; p < or = 0.012) and improved health-related quality of life (Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [standardized] and Pediatric Asthma Caregiver Quality of Life Questionnaire overall scores; p < or = 0.006) and pulmonary function (predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced expiratory flow during the middle half of exhalation; p < or = 0.007). In this 26-week study of asthmatic children (6-11 years), safety profiles were similar and clinical benefits were greater with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide.

Long-term safety of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler in children: Results of an open-label study comparing mometasone furoate with beclomethasone dipropionate in children with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: To assess the long-term pediatric safety of 2 doses of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma and compare them with that of beclomethasone dipropionate administered via a metered dose inhaler (BDP-MDI) in the treatment of persistent asthma. Both MF-DPI doses tested are twice the approved pediatric dosage of 100 microg once-daily (QD) for children aged 4-11 years. METHODS: Children (N = 233) aged 4-11 years were randomized to 52 weeks of treatment with MF-DPI 200 microg QD AM, MF-DPI 100 microg twice daily (BID), or BDP-MDI 168 microg BID. Patients had used inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) daily for > or = 30 days before the screening visit and were on stable ICS doses for > or = 2 weeks before screening. The primary safety variable was the incidence of adverse events. Secondary safety variables were laboratory tests (including cortisol concentrations), vital signs, and physical examination. RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events was similar in all 3 treatment groups. The most frequently reported adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection, reported by 47%-49% of the MF-DPI-treated patients and 51% of the BPD-treated patients. Most adverse events were considered unrelated to study drug. The most frequently reported related adverse events were headache (MF-DPI 200 microg QD AM, 8%; MF-DPI 100 microg BID, 4%; BDP-MDI 168 microg BID, 2%) and oral candidiasis (4% in each treatment group). No clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, including plasma cortisol, vital signs, or physical examinations were noted in any treatment group. CONCLUSION: Both MF-DPI doses were well tolerated, with no unusual or unexpected adverse events or safety concerns, and had a similar adverse event profile to that of BDP-MDI 168 microg BID.

Preferences of adult patients with allergic rhinitis for the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate versus fluticasone propionate nasal sprays: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR. METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment. RESULTS: Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF. CONCLUSION: In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.

Safety features of budesonide inhalation suspension in the long-term treatment of asthma in young children.

Early inhaled corticosteroid treatment improves symptom control and pulmonary function in children with asthma; however, long-term safety data are limited in infants and young children. This study assessed the long-term safety of budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) in young children with persistent asthma. To continue to provide BIS to children who needed it-prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval-children 8 years of age or younger with mild, moderate, or severe persistent asthma who previously completed a 52-week open-label study of BIS were enrolled in an additional multicenter, open-label study that was to be concluded upon BIS approval. Patients already receiving BIS continued their current regimens. Patients younger than 4 years and those 4 years of age or older not receiving BIS at baseline started with total daily doses of 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively. BIS doses were adjusted throughout the study based on individual response. Adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters, vital signs, and physical examination findings were assessed. Of 198 enrolled patients, 152 (76.8%), 68 (34.3%), and 31 (15.7%) completed 1, 2, and 3 years of BIS treatment (mean daily dose 0.62+/-0.32 mg), respectively. One hundred sixty-six (83.8%) patients experienced an adverse event, of which 8.6% were considered by the investigator to be drug related. Adverse events were those typically occurring in a pediatric asthma population, with respiratory infection (49.0%) and sinusitis (25.3%) occurring at the greatest incidence. Only 2 patients withdrew due to adverse events. Mean changes in laboratory test results and physical examination findings were not clinically important throughout the study. Long-term BIS treatment is well tolerated in young children with persistent asthma, with a safety profile similar to that of short-term administration.

Clinical trial design, nasal allergen challenge models, and considerations of relevance to pediatrics, nasal polyposis, and different classes of medication.

Clinical trials in allergic rhinitis present several specific difficulties. In seasonal pollen-related disease, there are variations between subjects in the extent of pollen sensitization, individual variations in exposure to pollen even within a set area because of lifestyle differences, and variations between different areas in pollen counts and weather patterns. Thus, large patient numbers are needed in multicenter trials to account for such variations when the standard endpoint is symptom reporting. Furthermore, a pollen season may be relatively short (eg, lasting 6-8 weeks), and the pollen count is inconsistent during this period. Crossover study designs are thus inappropriate, and trials are usually conducted with a parallel-group design. This further increases the trial sample size as it reduces statistical power. These large patient numbers must be recruited over a very short period. Perennial house dust mite-sensitive allergic rhinitis presents other problems. Although there is less disease variation, it is appreciated that symptoms may be induced by nonallergic as well as allergic mechanisms because of the nasal hyperresponsiveness. The nonallergic symptoms may not be modified by treatments based on allergic disease mechanisms. Thus, symptom outcomes--although relevant to the patient--may not adequately reflect the pharmacologic efficacy of the specific intervention. To control variability and focus on allergic disease mechanisms, nasal allergen challenge has been used in drug development. Single-dose challenges in the laboratory or in a pollen chamber, which allow many volunteers to be studied at the same time, have proven useful in the evaluation of drugs that afford acute symptom relief. However, such challenges incompletely model naturally occurring disease, in which the repeated daily exposure to allergen modifies the mucosal inflammatory cell profile and in particular promotes the epithelial accumulation of effector cells. This alters the response to allergen exposure. To model this, repeated low-dose daily allergen exposure has been used to generate these mucosal changes artificially, and early studies suggest that this may be a more valid model for the evaluation of anti-inflammatory therapy. However, little has been published with this model. Different disease groups are associated with their own specific issues in clinical trials. The pediatric population, in which allergic rhinitis is common, has different requirements for education, quality of life evaluation, and adverse-event monitoring; nasal polyposis, because of the nature of the disease, requires additional means of assessment, such as nasal endoscopy and imaging (eg, computerized tomography scanning), as well as attention to additional outcome measures (eg, the measurement of sense of smell). Within clinical trial design, there are important questions to be considered in relationship to the therapeutic intervention. Should this be given topically or systemically? What are the appropriate timing and frequency of medication? Does the disease itself modify the treatment efficacy, and does combination therapy afford better clinical outcome than single-modality therapy? These issues are discussed, and the influences of current therapies on objective outcome measures in allergic rhinitis are reviewed.

Nebulized budesonide inhalation suspension compared with cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution for asthma in young children: results of a randomized outcomes trial.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of antiinflammatory asthma medications for infants and young children has been limited. The objective of this study was to compare effects of nebulized budesonide inhalation suspension and cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution on asthma-related health outcomes in young children with asthma. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, parallel-group, 52-week, open-label study in 36 US clinical sites. Patients included 335 children who were 2 to 6 years of age and had persistent asthma that had been treated with at least 1 long-term control medication; 287 children (86%) completed the study. Patients received budesonide inhalation suspension, 0.5 mg daily (n = 168), or cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution, 20 mg 4 times daily (n = 167), for 8 weeks, followed by dose titration at the investigator's discretion. The main outcome measure was the rate of asthma exacerbations over 52 weeks. Secondary measures included times to first asthma exacerbation and first use of additional asthma therapy, asthma symptom scores, rescue medication use, and health care resource use. RESULTS: The budesonide group had a mean (median) asthma exacerbation rate of 1.23 (0.99) per year compared with 2.41 (1.85) for the cromolyn group, significantly longer times to first exacerbation and first use of additional long-term asthma medication, greater improvements in asthma symptom scores, reduced use of rescue medication, and fewer urgent care visits. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide inhalation suspension was more effective than nebulized cromolyn sodium in young children with persistent asthma. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar adverse event profiles.