Nemolizumab with concomitant topical therapy in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2): results from two replicate, double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Nemolizumab, an interleukin (IL)-31 receptor subunit α antagonist, inhibits the IL-31 pathway of itch and skin inflammation in atopic dermatitis. Two international phase 3 studies were done to assess the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab in atopic dermatitis. In this Article we report results for the 16-week initial treatment period of both trials. METHODS: ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 were identical 48-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in adult and adolescent participants (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, associated pruritus, and inadequate response to topical steroids. Participants were enrolled from 281 clinics, hospitals, and academic centres in 22 countries across both trials, and were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously (baseline loading dose 60 mg) or matching placebo once every 4 weeks with background topical corticosteroids (TCS) with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI; ie, TCS-TCI background treatment). Randomisation was done via interactive response technology and stratified by baseline disease and pruritus severity. Study staff and participants were masked throughout the study, with outcome assessors masked until database lock. Coprimary endpoints at week 16 post-baseline were Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 [clear skin] or 1 [almost clear skin] with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline) and at least 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline (EASI-75 response). Outcome rates were compared between groups with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for randomisation strata. The key secondary endpoints were the proportion of participants with Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score improvement of at least 4 points at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 16; PP-NRS score below 2 at weeks 4 and 16; Sleep Disturbance Numerical Rating Scale score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; EASI-75 response plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; and IGA success plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16. Efficacy analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis; safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of nemolizumab or placebo. Both studies are completed (ClinicalTrials.gov: ARCADIA 1, NCT03985943 and ARCADIA 2, NCT03989349). FINDINGS: Between Aug 9, 2019, and Nov 2, 2022, 1728 participants were enrolled across both trials: 1142 were allocated to nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI (620 in ARCADIA 1 and 522 in ARCADIA 2) and 586 to placebo plus TCS-TCI (321 in ARCADIA 1 and 265 in ARCADIA 2). ARCADIA 1 included 500 (53%) male participants and 441 (47%) female participants, and ARCADIA 2 included 381 (48%) male participants and 406 (52%) female participants. Mean age ranged from 33·3 (SD 15·6) years to 35·2 (17·0) years across the treatment groups. Both trials met the coprimary endpoints; at week 16, a greater proportion of participants receiving nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI versus placebo plus TCS-TCI had IGA success (ARCADIA 1: 221 [36%] of 620 vs 79 [25%] of 321, adjusted percentage difference 11·5% [97·5% CI 4·7-18·3], p=0·0003; ARCADIA 2: 197 [38%] of 522 vs 69 [26%] of 265, adjusted difference 12·2% [4·6-19·8], p=0·0006) and an EASI-75 response (ARCADIA 1: 270 [44%] vs 93 [29%], adjusted difference 14·9% [7·8-22·0], p<0·0001; ARCADIA 2: 220 [42%] vs 80 [30%], adjusted difference 12·5% [4·6-20·3], p=0·0006). Significant benefits were observed with nemolizumab for all key secondary endpoints including improvement in itch, as early as week 1, and sleep improvement by week 16. The safety profile was similar between nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI and placebo plus TCS-TCI. In the safety sets, 306 (50%) of 616 participants (ARCADIA 1) and 215 (41%) of 519 participants (ARCADIA 2) who received nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in six [1%] and 13 [3%], respectively); and 146 (45%) of 321 (ARCADIA 1) and 117 (44%) of 263 (ARCADIA 2) who received placebo plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in four [1%] and three [1%], respectively). Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events possibly related to nemolizumab were reported in five (1%) participants in ARCADIA 2. No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI was efficacious and showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and itch in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of current therapies if approved. FUNDING: Galderma.

Capturing patient-reported sleep disturbance in atopic dermatitis clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient-focused approaches to capturing day-to-day variability in sleep disturbance are needed to properly evaluate the sleep benefits of new treatments. Such approaches rely on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures validated in the target patient population. METHODS: Using atopic dermatitis (AD) as an example of a disease in which sleep is commonly disturbed, we developed a strategy for measuring sleep disturbance in AD trials. In developing this strategy, we conducted a targeted literature review and held concept elicitation interviews with adolescents and adults with AD. We subsequently identified potentially suitable PRO measures and cognitively debriefed them. Finally, we evaluated their psychometric properties using data from phase 2b (NCT03100344) and phase 3 (NCT03985943 and NCT03989349) clinical trials. RESULTS: The literature review confirmed that sleep disturbance is a key impact of AD but failed to identify validated PRO measures for assessing fluctuations in sleep disturbance. Subsequent concept elicitation interviews confirmed the multidimensional nature of sleep disturbance in AD and supported use of a single-item measure to assess overall sleep disturbance severity, complemented by a diary to capture individual components of sleep disturbance. The single-item sleep disturbance numerical rating scale (SD NRS) and multi-item Subject Sleep Diary (SSD)-an AD-adapted version of the Consensus Sleep Diary-were identified as potentially suitable PRO measures. Cognitive debriefing of the SD NRS and SSD demonstrated their content validity and their understandability to patients. Psychometric analyses based on AD trial data showed that the SD NRS is a well-defined, reliable, and fit-for-purpose measure of sleep disturbance in adults with AD. Furthermore, the SD NRS correlated with many SSD sleep parameters, suggesting that most concepts from the SSD can be covered using the SD NRS. CONCLUSIONS: Using these findings, we developed an approach for measuring sleep disturbance in AD trials. Subject to further research, the same approach could also be applied to future trials of other skin diseases where itch causes sleep disturbance.

Assessing Response in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Measures Used in HTAs and Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing treatment response is key to determining treatment value in atopic dermatitis (AD). Currently, response is assessed using various clinician- or patient-reported measures and response criteria. This variation creates a mismatch of evidence across trials, hindering the ability of clinicians, regulators, and payers to compare the efficacy of treatments. This review identifies which measures and criteria are used to determine response in clinical trials and health technology assessments (HTAs). Moreover, it systematically reviews the psychometric performance of those measures and criteria to understand which perform best in capturing patient-relevant symptoms and treatment benefits. METHODS: A scoping review of clinical trials and HTAs in AD identified the following measures for inclusion: the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies testing the psychometric performance of these measures in adults or adolescents with AD. RESULTS: A lack of consistency in the assessment of response was observed across clinical trials and HTAs. Important gaps in psychometric evidence were identified. No content validations of the EASI and IGA in AD were found, while some quantitative studies suggested that these measures fail to capture itch, a core symptom. The PP-NRS and DLQI performed well. No studies compared the performance of different response criteria. CONCLUSION: Content validation of the PP-NRS confirmed the importance of itch as a core symptom and treatment priority in AD; however, itch is not well covered in the EASI or IGA. Including the PP-NRS in clinical trials and HTAs will better capture patient-relevant benefit and response. Although various response criteria were used, no studies compared the performance of different criteria to inform which were most appropriate to compare treatments in clinical trials and HTAs.

The assessment of treatment response is important in determining treatment value in atopic dermatitis (AD). This study aimed to identify which outcome measures and criteria are used to determine treatment response in clinical trials and health technology assessments (HTAs). The psychometric performance of identified outcome measures and criteria was then systematically reviewed to understand which perform best in capturing patient-relevant symptoms and treatment benefits in AD. The review identified and included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) as response measures. Lack of consistency in how response is assessed across clinical trials and HTAs makes it difficult for clinicians and payers to compare the efficacies and cost-effectivenesses of different treatments and to make optimal treatment decisions. The review found that content validity (the extent to which a measure covers those symptoms and treatment benefits which are important to patients) was not assessed for EASI and IGA. EASI and IGA are often used to assess response in clinical trials and HTAs, but they miss key elements of the patient-relevant disease impact and treatment benefit, including itch. Treatments leading to improvements in missed symptoms (e.g. itch) will be undervalued using EASI and IGA, decreasing the chances of regulatory approval and reimbursement. Moreover, response criteria used in clinical trials and HTAs are sometimes adopted in prescriber settings. Here, if response assessment does not capture patient-relevant benefit, patients' access to tailored treatment may be restricted due to the perceived non-response.

Risk behaviour and patient preferences for an improved non-melanoma skin cancer prevention modality for organ-transplanted patients: a European, multi-country, online patient community study.

Immunosuppressants used in organ transplant patients increase the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer. This study aimed to evaluate patient behaviours towards skin cancer prevention methods and to understand characteristics of a future prevention strategy based on patients' perspective. Carenity, a global online patient community, enabled the recruitment of 200 adult patients with solid organ transplants from four European countries: France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Most patients were well informed about the risk of skin cancer, but only 27% (53/200) monitored their skin. Most patients exposed themselves to intense sun exposure once a month or more. Nevertheless, more than half of patients were motivated to use additional prevention strategies and limit their sun exposure. The most appropriate prevention strategy was reported to be the use of a cosmetically attractive, water-resistant, paraben/fragrance-free cream. A one-size-fits-all approach is not an appropriate prevention strategy and an adapted approach based on patients' preferences may significantly contribute to better compliance and adherence.

A randomized study to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a heptavalent diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, haemophilus influenzae b, and meningococcal serogroup C combination vaccine administered to infants at 2, 4 and 12 months of age.

BACKGROUND: The immunogenicity and safety of the investigational diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and meningococcal serogroup C (MenC) heptavalent combination vaccine were compared with those of licensed control vaccines. METHODS: In this open, phase II, randomized study (NCT01090453), 480 infants from Germany, France and Canada received the heptavalent vaccine (Hepta group) or hexavalent and monovalent MenC control vaccines (HexaMenC group) co-administered with a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine at 2, 4 and 12 months of age. Immunogenicity was measured 1 month after the second primary dose, and before and 1 month after the booster dose. Safety and reactogenicity were also evaluated. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of immune responses to MenC and Hib induced by 2-dose primary vaccination with the heptavalent vaccine versus control vaccines was demonstrated. In exploratory analyses, postprimary and postbooster functional antibody geometric mean titers against MenC tended to be lower (1119.5 vs. 3200.5; 2653.8 vs. 6028.4) and antibody geometric mean concentrations against Hib higher (1.594 vs. 0.671 µg/mL; 17.678 vs. 13.737 µg/mL) in the Hepta versus the HexaMenC group. The heptavalent and control vaccines were immunogenic to all other antigens, although immune responses to poliovirus were lower than expected in both groups. No differences in safety and reactogenicity profiles were detected between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The heptavalent vaccine induced non-inferior MenC and Hib responses compared with control vaccines. Both vaccination regimens, when administered at 2, 4 and 12 months of age, had comparable safety profiles and were immunogenic to all antigens, with lower-than-expected responses to poliomyelitis.

A randomized, controlled trial to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a heptavalent diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, hib and meningococcal serogroup C combination vaccine administered at 2, 3, 4 and 12-18 months of age.

BACKGROUND: Combination vaccines offer protection against multiple diseases with fewer injections. This study evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of an investigational diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and meningococcal serogroup C (MenC) heptavalent combination vaccine (heptavalent vaccine) given as 4 doses at 2, 3, 4 and 12-18 months of age. METHODS: In this randomized, open, phase II study (NCT00970307/NCT01171989) conducted in Poland, 421 infants were enrolled to receive the heptavalent vaccine or licensed comparator vaccines. Immunogenicity against study vaccine antigens was measured prior to and 1 month after primary and booster vaccinations. Safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines were also evaluated. RESULTS: The primary noninferiority objectives of the MenC and Hib immune responses induced by the heptavalent vaccine versus comparator vaccines were reached after primary vaccination, but no statistical conclusion could be drawn after booster dose. One month after primary and booster vaccinations, ≥98.4% of the heptavalent vaccine recipients were seroprotected for MenC and Hib. Exploratory analyses indicated that the heptavalent vaccine induced higher postprimary vaccination antibody geometric mean concentrations against Hib, but lower postprimary and postbooster vaccinations geometric mean titers against MenC compared with the relevant comparator vaccines. The reactogenicity profiles of the vaccines were acceptable, although 1 infant vaccinated with the heptavalent vaccine experienced a serious adverse event (thrombocytopenia) considered possibly related to vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The heptavalent vaccine was immunogenic and had a clinically acceptable safety profile when administered to infants and toddlers.

DiC14-amidine cationic liposomes stimulate myeloid dendritic cells through Toll-like receptor 4.

DiC14-amidine cationic liposomes were recently shown to promote Th1 responses when mixed with allergen. To further define the mode of action of diC14-amidine as potential vaccine adjuvant, we characterized its effects on mouse and human myeloid dendritic cells (DC). First, we observed that, as compared with two other cationic liposomes, only diC14-amidine liposomes induced the production of IL-12p40 and TNF-alpha by mouse bone marrow-derived DC. DiC14-amidine liposomes also activated human DC, as shown by synthesis of IL-12p40 and TNF-alpha, accumulation of IL-6, IFN-beta and CXCL10 mRNA, and up-regulation of membrane expression of CD80 and CD86. DC stimulation by diC14-amidine liposomes was associated with activation of NF-kappaB, ERK1/2, JNK and p38 MAP kinases. Finally, we demonstrated in mouse and human cells that diC14-amidine liposomes use Toll-like receptor 4 to elicit both MyD88-dependent and Toll/IL-1R-containing adaptor inducing interferon IFN-beta (TRIF)-dependent responses.