Nasal Brushing Molecular Endotyping Distinguishes CRSwNP Patients with Better Response to Dupilumab.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of pathophysiologic diversity in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), but data characterizing the molecular endotypes of CRSwNP and their association with treatment is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To identify gene signatures associated with CRSwNP endotypes, clinical features, and dupilumab treatment response. METHODS: Nasal brushing samples were collected from 89 patients randomized to dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks or placebo in the SINUS-52 trial (NCT02898454). Microarrays were used to identify transcriptional clusters and assess the relationship between gene expression and baseline clinical features and clinical response to dupilumab. Endotype signatures were determined using differential expression analysis. RESULTS: Two distinct transcriptional clusters (C1 and C2) were identified, both with elevated type 2 biomarkers. At baseline, C2 patients had higher mean Nasal Polyp Score and higher type 2 biomarker levels than C1 patients. At Week 24, significant improvements in clinical outcomes (dupilumab vs placebo) were observed in both clusters, although the magnitude of improvements was significantly greater in C2 than C1, and more C2 patients demonstrated clinically meaningful responses. Gene sets enrichment analyses supported the existence of two molecular endotypes: C2 was enriched in genes associated with type 2 inflammation (including periostin, cadherin-26, and type 2 cysteine protease inhibitors), while C1 was enriched in genes associated with T cell activation and interleukin-12 production. CONCLUSION: Two distinct gene signatures associated with CRSwNP clinical features were identified; the endotype signatures were associated with clinical outcome measures and magnitude of dupilumab response.

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.).

Digital wearable insole-based identification of knee arthropathies and gait signatures using machine learning.

Gait is impaired in musculoskeletal conditions, such as knee arthropathy. Gait analysis is used in clinical practice to inform diagnosis and monitor disease progression or intervention response. However, clinical gait analysis relies on subjective visual observation of walking as objective gait analysis has not been possible within clinical settings due to the expensive equipment, large-scale facilities, and highly trained staff required. Relatively low-cost wearable digital insoles may offer a solution to these challenges. In this work, we demonstrate how a digital insole measuring osteoarthritis-specific gait signatures yields similar results to the clinical gait-lab standard. To achieve this, we constructed a machine learning model, trained on force plate data collected in participants with knee arthropathy and controls. This model was highly predictive of force plate data from a validation set (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [auROC] = 0.86; area under the precision-recall curve [auPR] = 0.90) and of a separate, independent digital insole dataset containing control and knee osteoarthritis subjects (auROC = 0.83; auPR = 0.86). After showing that digital insole-derived gait characteristics are comparable to traditional gait measurements, we next showed that a single stride of raw sensor time-series data could be accurately assigned to each subject, highlighting that individuals using digital insoles can be identified by their gait characteristics. This work provides a framework for a promising alternative to traditional clinical gait analysis methods, adds to the growing body of knowledge regarding wearable technology analytical pipelines, and supports clinical development of at-home gait assessments, with the potential to improve the ease, frequency, and depth of patient monitoring.

The way we walk ­ our 'gait' ­ is a key indicator of health. Gait irregularities like limping, shuffling or a slow pace can be signs of muscle or joint problems. Assessing a patient's gait is therefore an important element in diagnosing these conditions, and in evaluating whether treatments are working. Gait is often assessed via a simple visual inspection, with patients being asked to walk back and forth in a doctor's office. While quick and easy, this approach is highly subjective and therefore imprecise. 'Objective gait analysis' is a more accurate alternative, but it relies on tests being conducted in specialised laboratories with large-scale, expensive equipment operated by highly trained staff. Unfortunately, this means that gait laboratories are not accessible for everyday clinical use. In response, Wipperman et al. aimed to develop a low-cost alternative to the complex equipment used in gait laboratories. To do this, they harnessed wearable sensor technologies ­ devices that can directly measure physiological data while embedded in clothing or attached to the user. Wearable sensors have the advantage of being cheap, easy to use, and able to provide clinically useful information without specially trained staff. Wipperman et al. analysed data from classic gait laboratory devices, as well as 'digital insoles' equipped with sensors that captured foot movements and pressure as participants walked. The analysis first 'trained' on data from gait laboratories (called force plates) and then applied the method to gait measurements obtained from digital insoles worn by either healthy participants or patients with knee problems. Analysis of the pressure data from the insoles confirmed that they could accurately predict which measurements were from healthy individuals, and which were from patients. The gait characteristics detected by the insoles were also comparable to lab-based measurements ­ in other words, the insoles provided similar type and quality of data as a gait laboratory. Further analysis revealed that information from just a single step could reveal additional information about the subject's walking. These results support the use of wearable devices as a simple and relatively inexpensive way to measure gait in everyday clinical practice, without the need for specialised laboratories and visits to the doctor's office. Although the digital insoles will require further analytical and clinical study before they can be widely used, Wipperman et al. hope they will eventually make monitoring muscle and joint conditions easier and more affordable.

Differential modulation of allergic rhinitis nasal transcriptome by dupilumab and allergy immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Nasal epithelial cells are important regulators of barrier function and immune signaling; however, in allergic rhinitis (AR) these functions can be disrupted by inflammatory mediators. We aimed to better discern AR disease mechanisms using transcriptome data from nasal brushing samples from individuals with and without AR. METHODS: Data were drawn from a feasibility study of individuals with and without AR to Timothy grass and from a clinical trial evaluating 16 weeks of treatment with the following: dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds interleukin (IL)-4Rα and inhibits type 2 inflammation by blocking signaling of both IL-4/IL-13; subcutaneous immunotherapy with Timothy grass (SCIT), which inhibits allergic responses through pleiotropic effects; SCIT + dupilumab; or placebo. Using nasal brushing samples from these studies, we defined distinct gene signatures in nasal tissue of AR disease and after nasal allergen challenge (NAC) and assessed how these signatures were modulated by study drug(s). RESULTS: Treatment with dupilumab (normalized enrichment score [NES] = -1.73, p = .002) or SCIT + dupilumab (NES = -2.55, p < .001), but not SCIT alone (NES = +1.16, p = .107), significantly repressed the AR disease signature. Dupilumab (NES = -2.55, p < .001), SCIT (NES = -2.99, p < .001), and SCIT + dupilumab (NES = -3.15, p < .001) all repressed the NAC gene signature. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate type 2 inflammation is an important contributor to the pathophysiology of AR disease and that inhibition of the type 2 pathway with dupilumab may normalize nasal tissue gene expression.

Nasopharyngeal Viral Load Is the Major Driver of Incident Antibody Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Background: Virologic determinants of seroconversion to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were defined in a post hoc analysis of prospectively studied vaccine- and infection-naïve individuals at high risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: This phase 3 COVID-19 prevention trial (NCT04452318) with casirivimab and imdevimab was conducted in July 2020-February 2021, before widespread vaccine availability. Placebo-treated participants who were uninfected (SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-qPCR] negative) and seronegative were assessed weekly for 28 days (efficacy assessment period [EAP]) for COVID-19 symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-qPCR of nasopharyngeal swab samples and for serostatus by antinucleocapsid immunoglobulin (Ig) G. Regression-based modeling, including causal mediation analysis, estimated the effects of viral load on seroconversion. Results: Of 157/1069 (14.7%) uninfected and seronegative (for antispike IgG, antispike IgA, and antinucleocapsid IgG) participants who became infected during the EAP, 105 (65%) seroconverted. The mean (SD) maximum viral load of seroconverters was 7.23 (1.68) log10 copies/mL vs 4.8 (2.2) log10 copies/mL in those who remained seronegative; viral loads of ∼6.0 log10 copies/mL better predicted seroconversion. The mean of the maximum viral load was 7.11 log10 copies/mL in symptomatic participants vs 5.58 log10 copies/mL in asymptomatic participants. The mean duration of detectable viral load was longer in seroconverted vs seronegative participants: 3.24 vs 1.63 weeks. Conclusions: Maximum SARS-CoV-2 viral load is a major driver of seroconversion and symptomatic COVID-19, with high viral loads (∼6.0 log10 copies/mL) better predicting seroconversion. Serology underestimates infection rates, incidence, and prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab up to 52 weeks in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis (LIBERTY EoE TREET study): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term management options that specifically target the underlying inflammation in eosinophilic oesophagitis are needed. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13; we aimed to assess its long-term efficacy and safety in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis enrolled in part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study who continued to part C (part B-C). METHODS: LIBERTY EoE TREET was a three-part, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted at 65 hospitals and private clinics across ten countries in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA. Adults or adolescents (aged ≥12 years) with a diagnosis of eosinophilic oesophagitis by endoscopic biopsy (peak oesophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]) from at least one oesophageal region despite 8 weeks of high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and a Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of at least 10 at baseline were eligible. In part B, patients were randomly (1:1:1) assigned to receive subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg either weekly or every 2 weeks or weekly placebo until week 24. Randomisation was done centrally by interactive voice response system/web response system (IVRS/IWRS) in blocks and stratified according to age (<18 years vs ≥18 years) and use of PPI at randomisation (yes vs no). Patients, study sponsors, and investigators involved in the study were masked to the randomisation outcome. Eligible patients who received placebo in part B and continued to part C were randomly assigned again (1:1) to either weekly dupilumab (placebo/weekly dupilumab group) or dupilumab every 2 weeks (placebo/dupilumab every 2 weeks), with matching placebo alternating with dupilumab doses. Patients who were randomly assigned to one of the dupilumab dose regimens in part B remained on the same regimen in part C for an additional 28 weeks (weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group or dupilumab every 2 weeks/dupilumab every 2 weeks group). Treatment assignment in part C was managed by IVRS/IWRS to maintain blinding of treatment assignment in part B. The primary endpoint of this trial has been reported; here, we report the week 52 outcomes of part B-C. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the part C safety-analysis set, which included all patients who were randomised in part B, entered part C, and received any study drug in part C. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03633617. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2019, and March 11, 2021, 240 patients were randomly assigned into part B, of whom 227 (74 in placebo group, 74 in weekly dupilumab group, and 79 in dupilumab every 2 weeks group) continued into part B-C and were included in the current analysis. 37 patients switched from placebo to weekly dupilumab, and 37 from placebo to dupilumab every 2 weeks; 74 patients continued on weekly dupilumab and 79 continued on dupilumab every 2 weeks. Of the patients who entered part B-C, 75 (33%) were adolescents, 145 (64%) male, 82 (36%) female, and 206 (91%) White. At week 52, 55 (85%) patients in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, 25 (68%) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, 54 (74%) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and 23 (72%) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group achieved a peak oesophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/hpf or less. Mean percent change from part B baseline in peak eosinophil count was -95·9% (95% CI -96·9 to -94·9) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -84·2% (-98·3 to -70·2) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -84·8% (-94·3 to -75·2) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -91·2% (-95·9 to -86·5) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. At week 52, mean change from part B baseline in eosinophilic oesophagitis Histology Scoring System (HSS) grade score was -1·0 point (95% CI -1·1 to -0·9) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group; mean change in eosinophilic oesophagitis HSS stage score was -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group. Similar improvements were observed in the every 2 weeks dupilumab groups. Mean absolute change from part B baseline in DSQ score was -30·3 points (95% CI -34·5 to -26·1) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -27·3 points (-32·1 to -22·4) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -20·9% (-25·4 to -16·3) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -23·7% (-29·1 to -18·3) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. Mean change from part B baseline in endoscopic reference score was -5·4 points (95% CI -6·1 to -4·6) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -6·1 points (-7·3 to -4·9) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -5·2% (-6·0 to -4·4) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -4·3% (-5·4 to -3·1) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. During part B-C, one (3%) patient in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, one (1%) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, and one (3%) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group received rescue medication. One (3%) patient in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group and one (1%) in the dupilumab every 2 weeks/dupilumab every 2 weeks group underwent a rescue oesophageal dilation procedure. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were injection-site reactions (ten [14%] in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and four [11%] in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group). INTERPRETATION: Improvements in histological, symptomatic, endoscopic, and molecular features of eosinophilic oesophagitis observed after 24 weeks of weekly dupilumab treatment were maintained or continued to improve to week 52. These findings reinforce the importance of weekly dupilumab, rather than every 2 weeks, for the improvement of symptoms in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Casirivimab + imdevimab accelerates symptom resolution linked to improved COVID-19 outcomes across susceptible antibody and risk profiles.

Severe, protracted symptoms are associated with poor outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In a placebo-controlled study of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) in persons at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 3816), evolution of individual symptoms was assessed for resolution patterns across risk factors, and baseline SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses against S1 and N domains. CAS + IMD versus placebo provided statistically significant resolution for 17/23 symptoms, with greater response linked to absence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, or specific neutralizing antibodies at baseline, or high baseline viral load. Resolution of five key symptoms (onset days 3-5)-dyspnea, cough, feeling feverish, fatigue, and loss of appetite-independently correlated with reduced hospitalization and death (hazard ratio range: 0.31-0.56; P < 0.001-0.043), and was more rapid in CAS + IMD-treated patients lacking robust early antibody responses. Those who seroconverted late still benefited from treatment. Thus, highly neutralizing COVID-19-specific antibodies provided by CAS + IMD treatment accelerated key symptom resolution associated with hospitalization and death in those at high risk for severe disease as well as in those lacking early, endogenous neutralizing antibody responses.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Combination in Immunocompromised Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Post Hoc Analysis in a Phase 1/2/3 Double-Blind Trial.

Background: Individuals who are immunocompromised (IC) are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Post hoc analyses of a double-blind trial conducted prior to Omicron (June 2020-April 2021), in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 assessed viral load, clinical outcomes, and safety of casirivimab plus imdevimab (CAS + IMD) versus placebo in IC versus overall study patients. Results: Ninety-nine of 1940 (5.1%) patients were IC. IC versus overall patients were more frequently seronegative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (68.7% vs 41.2%) and had higher median baseline viral loads (7.21 vs 6.32 log10 copies/mL). On placebo, IC versus overall patients had slower viral load declines. CAS + IMD reduced viral load in IC and overall patients; least-squares mean difference versus placebo in time-weighted average change from baseline viral load at day 7 was -0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.25 to -.14) log10 copies/mL for IC patients and -0.31 (95% CI, -.42 to -.20) log10 copies/mL for overall patients. For IC patients, the cumulative incidence of death or mechanical ventilation at day 29 was lower with CAS + IMD (11.0%) versus placebo (17.2%), consistent with overall patients (15.7% CAS + IMD vs 18.3% placebo). IC and overall patients receiving CAS + IMD exhibited similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (30.4% and 26.6%, respectively), grade ≥2 hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions (1.4% and 2.5%), and deaths (8.7% and 12.2%). Conclusions: IC patients were more likely to exhibit high viral loads and be seronegative at baseline. For susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variants, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and resulted in fewer death or mechanical ventilation events in IC and overall study patients. There were no new safety findings among IC patients. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04426695.

Association of complement pathways with COVID-19 severity and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Complement activation has been implicated in COVID-19 pathogenesis. This study aimed to assess the levels of complement activation products and full-length proteins in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and evaluated whether complement pathway markers are associated with outcomes. METHODS: Longitudinal measurements of complement biomarkers from 89 hospitalized adult patients, grouped by baseline disease severity, enrolled in an adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and treated with intravenous sarilumab (200 mg or 400 mg) or placebo (NCT04315298), were performed. These measurements were then correlated with clinical and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: All complement pathways were activated in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Alternative pathway activation was predominant earlier in the disease course. Complement biomarkers correlated with multiple variables of multi-organ dysfunction and inflammatory injury. High plasma sC5b-9, C3a, factor Bb levels, and low mannan-binding lectin levels were associated with increased mortality. Sarilumab treatment showed a modest inhibitory effect on complement activation. Moreover, sera from patients spontaneously deposited C5b-9 complex on the endothelial surface ex vivo, suggesting a microvascular thrombotic potential. CONCLUSION: These results advance our understanding of COVID-19 disease pathophysiology and demonstrate the importance of specific complement pathway components as prognostic biomarkers in COVID-19.

Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing to Estimate the Contribution of Immune Evasion and Waning Immunity on Decreasing COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The impact variant-specific immune evasion and waning protection have on declining coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) remains unclear. Using whole-genome sequencing (WGS), we examined the contribution these factors had on the decline that followed the introduction of the Delta variant. Furthermore, we evaluated calendar-period-based classification as a WGS alternative. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study among people tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 1 April and 24 August 2021. Variants were classified using WGS and calendar period. RESULTS: We included 2029 cases (positive, sequenced samples) and 343 727 controls (negative tests). VE 14-89 days after second dose was significantly higher against Alpha (84.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 75.6%-90.0%) than Delta infection (68.9%; 95% CI, 58.0%-77.1%). The odds of Delta infection were significantly higher 90-149 than 14-89 days after second dose (P value = .003). Calendar-period-classified VE estimates approximated WGS-classified estimates; however, calendar-period-based classification was subject to misclassification (35% Alpha, 4% Delta). CONCLUSIONS: Both waning protection and variant-specific immune evasion contributed to the lower effectiveness. While calendar-period-classified VE estimates mirrored WGS-classified estimates, our analysis highlights the need for WGS when variants are cocirculating and misclassification is likely.

Comparison of the Inflammatory Circuits in Psoriasis Vulgaris, Non‒Pustular Palmoplantar Psoriasis, and Palmoplantar Pustular Psoriasis.

Palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (PPPP) and non‒pustular palmoplantar psoriasis (NPPP) are localized, debilitating forms of psoriasis. The inflammatory circuits involved in PPPP and NPPP are not well-understood. To compare the cellular and immunological features that differentiate PPPP and NPPP, skin biopsies were collected from a total of 30 participants with PPPP, NPPP, and psoriasis vulgaris (PV) and from 10 healthy participants. A subset consented to a second biopsy after 3 additional weeks off medication. Histologic staining of lesional and nonlesional skin showed higher neutrophil counts in PPPP than in NPPP and PV and higher CD8+ T-cell counts in NPPP. RNA sequencing and transcriptional analysis of skin biopsies showed enhanced IFN-γ pathway activation in NPPP lesions but stronger signatures of IL-17 pathway and neutrophil-related genes (e.g., IL36A) in PPPP lesional skin. Serum analysis on the Olink platform detected higher concentrations of T helper type 1, IFN-γ‒inducible chemokines in NPPP, and higher neutrophil-associated cytokines in PPPP. Taken together, this evidence suggests more pronounced T helper 1‒mediated inflammation in NPPP than in PV and PPPP and stronger neutrophil-associated activity in PPPP than in NPPP and PV. These data support targeting inflammatory pathways associated with neutrophilic inflammation (e.g., IL-36 signaling) for therapeutic development in PPPP.

Dupilumab in Adults and Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling, which have key roles in eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: We conducted a three-part, phase 3 trial in which patients 12 years of age or older underwent randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg or placebo (Part A) or in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg of dupilumab either weekly or every 2 weeks or weekly placebo (Part B) up to week 24. Eligible patients who completed Part A or Part B continued the trial in Part C, in which those who completed Part A received dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg up to week 52 (the Part A-C group); Part C that included the eligible patients from Part B is ongoing. The two primary end points at week 24 were histologic remission (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score (range, 0 to 84, with higher values indicating more frequent or more severe dysphagia). RESULTS: In Part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of 42 patients (60%) who received weekly dupilumab and in 2 of 39 patients (5%) who received placebo (difference, 55 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 71; P<0.001). In Part B, histologic remission occurred in 47 of 80 patients (59%) with weekly dupilumab, in 49 of 81 patients (60%) with dupilumab every 2 weeks, and in 5 of 79 patients (6%) with placebo (difference between weekly dupilumab and placebo, 54 percentage points; 95% CI, 41 to 66 [P<0.001]; difference between dupilumab every 2 weeks and placebo, 56 percentage points; 95% CI, 43 to 69 [not significant per hierarchical testing]). The mean (±SD) DSQ scores at baseline were 33.6±12.41 in Part A and 36.7±11.22 in Part B; the scores improved with weekly dupilumab as compared with placebo, with differences of -12.32 (95% CI, -19.11 to -5.54) in Part A and -9.92 (95% CI, -14.81 to -5.02) in Part B (both P<0.001) but not with dupilumab every 2 weeks (difference in Part B, -0.51; 95% CI, -5.42 to 4.41). Serious adverse events occurred in 9 patients during the Part A or B treatment period (in 7 who received weekly dupilumab, 1 who received dupilumab every 2 weeks, and 1 who received placebo) and in 1 patient in the Part A-C group during the Part C treatment period who received placebo in Part A and weekly dupilumab in Part C. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, subcutaneous dupilumab administered weekly improved histologic outcomes and alleviated symptoms of the disease. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03633617.).

Casirivimab and Imdevimab Treatment Reduces Viral Load and Improves Clinical Outcomes in Seropositive Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with Nonneutralizing or Borderline Neutralizing Antibodies.

We conducted a post hoc analysis in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for functional neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at baseline from a phase 1, 2, and 3 trial of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants. Patients were randomized to a single dose of 2.4 g CAS+IMD, 8.0 g CAS+IMD, or placebo. Patients seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were analyzed by their baseline neutralizing antibody status. At baseline, 20.6% (178/864) of seropositive patients were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, indicating negative or very low functionally neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. CAS+IMD reduced viral load in patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies versus placebo, but not in patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies. In patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, we observed a trend in reduction of the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation, as well as in all-cause mortality, by day 29 with CAS+IMD versus placebo. The proportions of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation from days 1 to 29 were 19.1% in the placebo group and 10.9% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group, and the proportions of patients who died (all-cause mortality) from days 1 to 29 were 16.2% in the placebo group and 9.1% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group. In patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies, no measurable harm or benefit was observed in either the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation or the proportion of patients who died (all-cause mortality). In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen, CAS+IMD reduced viral load, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies. IMPORTANCE The clinical benefit of CAS+IMD in hospitalized seronegative patients with COVID-19 has previously been demonstrated, although these studies observed no clinical benefit in seropositive patients. As the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive individuals rises due to both vaccination and previous infection, it is important to understand whether there is a subset of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that there is a subset of hospitalized seropositive patients with inadequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies (i.e., those who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies) who may still benefit from CAS+IMD treatment if infected with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant. Therefore, utilizing serostatus alone to guide treatment decisions for patients with COVID-19 may fail to identify those seropositive patients who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapies known to be effective against circulating strains, dependent upon how effectively their endogenous antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2.

Type 2 Inflammation Contributes to Skin Barrier Dysfunction in Atopic Dermatitis.

Skin barrier dysfunction, a defining feature of atopic dermatitis (AD), arises from multiple interacting systems. In AD, skin inflammation is caused by host-environment interactions involving keratinocytes as well as tissue-resident immune cells such as type 2 innate lymphoid cells, basophils, mast cells, and T helper type 2 cells, which produce type 2 cytokines, including IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IL-31. Type 2 inflammation broadly impacts the expression of genes relevant for barrier function, such as intracellular structural proteins, extracellular lipids, and junctional proteins, and enhances Staphylococcus aureus skin colonization. Systemic anti‒type 2 inflammation therapies may improve dysfunctional skin barrier in AD.

Virologic Efficacy of Casirivimab and Imdevimab COVID-19 Antibody Combination in Outpatients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Phase 2 Dose-Ranging Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load, hospitalization, or death when administered as a 1200-mg or greater intravenous (IV) dose in a phase 3 COVID-19 outpatient study. Subcutaneous (SC) and/or lower IV doses should increase accessibility and/or drug supplies for patients. Objective: To assess the virologic efficacy of casirivimab and imdevimab across different IV and SC doses compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study included outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at 47 sites across the United States. Participants could be symptomatic or asymptomatic; symptomatic patients with risk factors for severe COVID-19 were excluded. Data were collected from December 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a single IV dose (523 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 300, 600, 1200, or 2400 mg or placebo; or a single SC dose (292 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 600 or 1200 mg or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the time-weighted average daily change from baseline (TWACB) in viral load from day 1 (baseline) through day 7 in patients seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Results: Among 815 randomized participants, 507 (282 randomized to IV treatment, 148 randomized to SC treatment, and 77 randomized to placebo) were seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Participants randomized to IV had a mean (SD) age of 34.6 (9.6) years (160 [44.6%] men; 14 [3.9%] Black; 121 [33.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 309 [86.1%] White); those randomized to SC had a mean age of 34.1 (10.0) years (102 [45.3%] men; 75 [34.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 6 [2.7%] Black; 190 [84.4%] White). All casirivimab and imdevimab treatments showed significant virologic reduction through day 7. Least-squares mean differences in TWACB viral load for casirivimab and imdevimab vs placebo ranged from -0.56 (95% CI; -0.89 to -0.24) log10 copies/mL for the 1200-mg IV dose to -0.71 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.38) log10 copies/mL for the 2400-mg IV dose. There were no adverse safety signals or dose-related safety findings, grade 2 or greater infusion-related or hypersensitivity reactions, grade 3 or greater injection-site reactions, or fatalities. Two serious adverse events not related to COVID-19 or the study drug were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial including outpatients with asymptomatic and low-risk symptomatic SARS-CoV-2, all IV and SC doses of casirivimab and imdevimab comparably reduced viral load. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04666441.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD). METHODS: In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. RESULTS: In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to -.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%-74.0%). No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04426695.

Lay Summary . Monoclonal antibody therapies that block the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) can prevent patients from being hospitalized. We hypothesized that these antibodies may also benefit patients who are already hospitalized with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed a study to determine if the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) can decrease the amount of virus in the nose of hospitalized patients and prevent the disease from becoming more severe. The study, conducted from June 2020 to April 2021, found that CAS + IMD treatment reduced the amount of virus in these patients, and may reduce their chance of dying or needing a ventilator (a machine that helps patients breathe). Patients were examined in 2 groups: those whose immune systems, at the start of the study, had not produced their own antibodies to fight SARS-CoV-2 (seronegative patients); or those that had already produced their own antibodies (seropositive patients) at the start of the study. Seronegative patients benefited the most from CAS + IMD. No safety concerns related to CAS + IMD were observed. These results demonstrate that monoclonal antibody therapy can help hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and may decrease their chances of needing assistance to breathe or dying.

Repeat subcutaneous administration of casirivimab and imdevimab in adults is well-tolerated and prevents the occurrence of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: A phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of repeat monthly doses of subcutaneous (SC) casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) in uninfected adult volunteers. METHODS: Participants were randomized (3:1) to SC CAS+IMD 1200 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for up to six doses. Primary and secondary end points evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Exploratory efficacy was evaluated by the incidence of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion. RESULTS: In total, 969 participants received CAS+IMD. Repeat monthly dosing of SC CAS+IMD led to a 92.4% relative risk reduction in clinically defined COVID-19 compared with placebo (3/729 [0.4%] vs 13/240 [5.4%]; odds ratio 0.07 [95% CI 0.01-0.27]), and a 100% reduction in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (0/729 vs 10/240 [4.2%]; odds ratio 0.00). Development of anti-drug antibodies occurred in a small proportion of participants (<5%). No grade ≥3 injection-site reactions (ISRs) or hypersensitivity reactions were reported. Slightly more participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events with CAS+IMD (54.9%) than with placebo (48.3%), a finding that was due to grade 1-2 ISRs. Serious adverse events were rare. No deaths were reported in the 6-month treatment period. CONCLUSION: Repeat monthly administration of 1200 mg SC CAS+IMD was well-tolerated, demonstrated low immunogenicity, and showed a substantial risk reduction in COVID-19 occurrence.

Efficacy and safety of a single dose of casirivimab and imdevimab for the prevention of COVID-19 over an 8-month period: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for COVID-19 prevention in patient populations who have not mounted or are not expected to mount an adequate immune response to complete COVID-19 vaccination. We previously reported that a single subcutaneous 1200 mg dose of the monoclonal antibody combination casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) prevented symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections by 81·4% in generally healthy household contacts of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals over a 1-month efficacy assessment period. Here we present additional results, including the 7-month follow-up period (months 2-8), providing additional insights about the potential for efficacy in pre-exposure prophylaxis settings. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in the USA, Romania, and Moldova in 2020-2021, before the emergence of omicron (B.1.1.529) and omicron-lineage variants. Uninfected and unvaccinated household contacts of infected individuals, judged by the investigator to be in good health, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 1200 mg CAS + IMD or placebo by subcutaneous injection according to a central randomisation scheme provided by an interactive web response system; randomisation was stratified per site by the test results of a local diagnostic assay for SARS-CoV-2 and age group at baseline. COVID-19 vaccines were prohibited before randomisation, but participants were allowed to receive COVID-19 vaccination during the follow-up period. Participants who developed COVID-19 symptoms during the follow-up period underwent RT-PCR testing. Prespecified endpoints included the proportion of previously uninfected and baseline-seronegative participants (seronegative-modified full analysis set) who had RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in the follow-up period (post-hoc for the timepoints of months 2-5 and 6-8 only) and underwent seroconversion (ie, became seropositive, considered a proxy for any SARS-CoV-2 infections [symptomatic and asymptomatic]; prespecified up to day 57, post-hoc for all timepoints thereafter). We also assessed the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04452318. FINDINGS: From July 13, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, 2317 participants who were RT-PCR-negative for SARS-CoV-2 were randomly assigned, of whom 1683 (841 assigned to CAS + IMD and 842 assigned to placebo) were seronegative at baseline. During the entirety of the 8-month study, CAS + IMD reduced the risk of COVID-19 by 81·2% (nominal p<0·0001) versus placebo (prespecified analysis). During the 7-month follow-up period, protection was greatest during months 2-5, with a 100% relative risk reduction in COVID-19 (nominal p<0·0001; post-hoc analysis). Efficacy waned during months 6-8 (post-hoc analysis). Seroconversion occurred in 38 (4·5%) of 841 participants in the CAS + IMD group and in 181 (21·5%) of 842 in the placebo group during the 8-month study (79·0% relative risk reduction vs placebo; nominal p<0·0001). Six participants in the placebo group were hospitalised due to COVID-19 versus none who received CAS + IMD. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events (including COVID-19) were reported in 24 (1·7%) of 1439 participants receiving CAS + IMD and in 23 (1·6%) of 1428 receiving placebo. Five deaths were reported, none of which were due to COVID-19 or related to the study drugs. INTERPRETATION: CAS + IMD is not authorised in any US region as of Jan 24, 2022, because data show that CAS + IMD is not active against omicron-lineage variants. In this study, done before the emergence of omicron-lineage variants, a single subcutaneous 1200 mg dose of CAS + IMD protected against COVID-19 for up to 5 months of community exposure to susceptible strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the pre-exposure prophylaxis setting, in addition to the post-exposure prophylaxis setting that was previously shown. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffmann-La Roche, US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.

UGT1A1 genetic variants are associated with increases in bilirubin levels in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with sarilumab.

Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin (IL)-6Rα that has been approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Mild liver function test abnormalities have been observed in patients treated with sarilumab. We describe a genome-wide association study of bilirubin elevations in RA patients treated with sarilumab. Array genotyping and exome sequencing were performed on DNA samples from 1075 patients. Variants in the UGT1A1 gene were strongly associated with maximum bilirubin elevations in sarilumab-treated patients (rs4148325; p = 2.88 × 10-41) but were not associated with aminotransferase elevations. No other independent loci showed evidence of association with bilirubin elevations after sarilumab treatment. These findings suggest that most bilirubin increases during sarilumab treatment are related to genetic variation in UGT1A1 rather than underlying liver injury.

Effect of Subcutaneous Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Combination vs Placebo on Development of Symptomatic COVID-19 in Early Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Easy-to-administer anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments may be used to prevent progression from asymptomatic infection to symptomatic disease and to reduce viral carriage. Objective: To evaluate the effect of combination subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab on progression from early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection to symptomatic COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2-infected index case at 112 sites in the US, Romania, and Moldova enrolled July 13, 2020-January 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021. Asymptomatic individuals (aged ≥12 years) were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection. Results from 314 individuals positive on SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing are reported. Interventions: Individuals were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg (600 mg of each; n = 158), or placebo (n = 156). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of seronegative participants who developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the 28-day efficacy assessment period. The key secondary efficacy end points were the number of weeks of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and the number of weeks of high viral load (>4 log10 copies/mL). Results: Among 314 randomized participants (mean age, 41.0 years; 51.6% women), 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period; 204 were asymptomatic and seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg, significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, -13.3% [95% CI, -26.3% to -0.3%]). Casirivimab and imdevimab reduced the number of symptomatic weeks per 1000 participants (895.7 weeks vs 1637.4 weeks with placebo; P = .03), an approximately 5.6-day reduction in symptom duration per symptomatic participant. Treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab also reduced the number of high viral load weeks per 1000 participants (489.8 weeks vs 811.9 weeks with placebo; P = .001). The proportion of participants receiving casirivimab and imdevimab who had 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse event was 33.5% vs 48.1% for placebo, including events related (25.8% vs 39.7%) or not related (11.0% vs 16.0%) to COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: Among asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-positive individuals living with an infected household contact, treatment with subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination vs placebo significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04452318.