Dupilumab in children aged 6 months to younger than 6 years with uncontrolled atopic dermatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Current systemic treatments for children younger than 6 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis that is uncontrolled with topical therapies might have suboptimal efficacy and safety. Dupilumab is approved for older children and adults with atopic dermatitis and for other type 2 inflammatory conditions. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of dupilumab with concomitant low-potency topical corticosteroids in children aged 6 months to younger than 6 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial was conducted in 31 hospitals, clinics, and academic institutions in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 6 months to younger than 6 years, with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score 3-4) diagnosed according to consensus criteria of the American Academy of Dermatology, and an inadequate response to topical corticosteroids. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to subcutaneous placebo or dupilumab (bodyweight ≥5 kg to <15 kg: 200 mg; bodyweight ≥15 kg to <30 kg: 300 mg) every 4 weeks plus low-potency topical corticosteroids (hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream) for 16 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age, baseline bodyweight, and region. Patient allocation was done via a central interactive web response system, and treatment allocation was masked. The primary endpoint at week 16 was the proportion of patients with IGA score 0-1 (clear or almost clear skin). The key secondary endpoint (coprimary endpoint for the EU and EU reference market) at week 16 was the proportion of patients with at least a 75% improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75). Primary analyses were done in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned patients, as randomly assigned) and safety analyses were done in all patients who received any study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03346434. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2020, and Feb 12, 2021, 197 patients were screened for eligibility, 162 of whom were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (n=83) or placebo (n=79) plus topical corticosteroids. At week 16, significantly more patients in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group had IGA 0-1 (23 [28%] vs three [4%], difference 24% [95% CI 13-34]; p<0·0001) and EASI-75 (44 [53%] vs eight [11%], difference 42% [95% CI 29-55]; p<0·0001). Overall prevalence of adverse events was similar in the dupilumab group (53 [64%] of 83 patients) and placebo group (58 [74%] of 78 patients). Conjunctivitis incidence was higher in the dupilumab group (four [5%]) than the placebo group (none). No dupilumab-related adverse events were serious or led to treatment discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Dupilumab significantly improved atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms versus placebo in children younger than 6 years. Dupilumab was well tolerated and showed an acceptable safety profile, similar to results in older children and adults. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Validation of a SNP-based non-invasive prenatal test to detect the fetal 22q11.2 deletion in maternal plasma samples.

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy using cell-free DNA in maternal plasma has been widely adopted. Recently, NIPT coverage has expanded to detect subchromosomal abnormalities including the 22q11.2 deletion. Validation of a SNP-based NIPT for detection of 22q11.2 deletions demonstrating a high sensitivity (97.8%) and specificity (99.75%) has been reported. We sought to further demonstrate the performance of a revised version of the test in a larger set of pregnancy plasma samples. METHODS: Blood samples from pregnant women (10 with 22q11.2-deletion‒affected fetuses and 390 negative controls) were successfully analyzed using a revised SNP-based NIPT for the 22q11.2 deletion. The sensitivity and specificity of the assay were measured. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the assay was 90% (9/10), and specificity of the assay was 99.74% (389/390), with a corresponding false positive-rate of 0.26%. DISCUSSION: The data presented in this study add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the ability of the SNP-based NIPT to detect 22q11.2 deletions with high sensitivity and specificity.

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.