Long-term prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks with lanadelumab: The HELP OLE Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate long-term effectiveness and safety of lanadelumab in patients ≥12 y old with hereditary angioedema (HAE) 1/2 (NCT02741596). METHODS: Rollover patients completing the HELP Study and continuing into HELP OLE received one lanadelumab 300 mg dose until first attack (dose-and-wait period), then 300 mg q2wks (regular dosing stage). Nonrollovers (newly enrolled) received lanadelumab 300 mg q2wks from day 0. Baseline attack rate for rollovers: ≥1 attack/4 weeks (based on run-in period attack rate during HELP Study); for nonrollovers: historical attack rate ≥1 attack/12 weeks. The planned treatment period was 33 months. RESULTS: 212 patients participated (109 rollovers, 103 nonrollovers); 81.6% completed ≥30 months on study (mean [SD], 29.6 [8.2] months). Lanadelumab markedly reduced mean HAE attack rate (reduction vs baseline: 87.4% overall). Patients were attack free for a mean of 97.7% of days during treatment; 81.8% and 68.9% of patients were attack free for ≥6 and ≥12 months, respectively. Angioedema Quality-of-Life total and domain scores improved from day 0 to end of study. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (excluding HAE attacks) were reported by 97.2% of patients; most commonly injection site pain (47.2%) and viral upper respiratory tract infection (42.0%). Treatment-related TEAEs were reported by 54.7% of patients. Most injection site reactions resolved within 1 hour (70.2%) or 1 day (92.6%). Six (2.8%) patients discontinued due to TEAEs. No treatment-related serious TEAEs or deaths were reported. Eleven treatment-related TEAEs of special interest were reported by seven (3.3%) patients. CONCLUSION: Lanadelumab demonstrated sustained efficacy and acceptable tolerability with long-term use in HAE patients.

Optimization of care for patients with hereditary angioedema living in rural areas.

BACKGROUND: People living in rural areas of the United States experience greater health inequality than individuals residing in urban or suburban locations and encounter several barriers to obtaining optimal health care. Health disparities are compounded for patients with rare diseases such as hereditary angioedema (HAE), an autosomal dominant genetic disorder characterized by recurrent, severe abdominal pain and life-threatening oropharyngeal or laryngeal swelling. OBJECTIVE: To explore the challenges of managing patients with HAE in rural areas and suggest possible improvements for optimizing care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for articles on patient care management, treatment challenges, rural health, and HAE. STUDY SELECTIONS: Relevant articles were selected and reviewed. RESULTS: Challenges in managing HAE in the rural setting were identified, including obtaining a diagnosis of HAE, easy access to a physician with expertise in HAE, continuity of care, availability of telemedicine services, access to approved HAE therapies, patient education, and economic barriers to treatment. Ways to improve HAE patient care in rural areas include health care provider recognition of the patient with undiagnosed HAE, development of individualized management plans, expansion of telemedicine, effective care at the local level, appropriate access to HAE medication, and increased awareness of patient support and advocacy groups. CONCLUSION: For patients with HAE living in rural areas, optimal care is complicated by health disparities. Given the scarcity with which these topics have been covered in the literature to date, it is intended that this article will serve as the impetus for a range of further initiatives focused on improving access to care.

Oral once-daily berotralstat for the prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Berotralstat (BCX7353) is an oral, once-daily inhibitor of plasma kallikrein in development for the prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of berotralstat in patients with HAE over a 24-week treatment period (the phase 3 APeX-2 trial). METHODS: APeX-2 was a double-blind, parallel-group study that randomized patients at 40 sites in 11 countries 1:1:1 to receive once-daily berotralstat in a dose of 110 mg or 150 mg or placebo (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03485911). Patients aged 12 years or older with HAE due to C1 inhibitor deficiency and at least 2 investigator-confirmed HAE attacks in the first 56 days of a prospective run-in period were eligible. The primary efficacy end point was the rate of investigator-confirmed HAE attacks during the 24-week treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were randomized; 120 of them received at least 1 dose of the study drug (n = 41, 40, and 39 in the 110-mg dose of berotralstat, 150-mg of dose berotralstat, and placebo groups, respectively). Berotralstat demonstrated a significant reduction in attack rate at both 110 mg (1.65 attacks per month; P = .024) and 150 mg (1.31 attacks per month; P < .001) relative to placebo (2.35 attacks per month). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred more with berotralstat than with placebo were abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and back pain. No drug-related serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Both the 110-mg and 150-mg doses of berotralstat reduced HAE attack rates compared with placebo and were safe and generally well tolerated. The most favorable benefit-to-risk profile was observed at a dose of 150 mg per day.

AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we screened participants 4 to 55 years of age with peanut allergy for allergic dose-limiting symptoms at a challenge dose of 100 mg or less of peanut protein (approximately one third of a peanut kernel) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Participants with an allergic response were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive AR101 (a peanut-derived investigational biologic oral immunotherapy drug) or placebo in an escalating-dose program. Participants who completed the regimen (i.e., received 300 mg per day of the maintenance regimen for approximately 24 weeks) underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at trial exit. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants 4 to 17 years of age who could ingest a challenge dose of 600 mg or more, without dose-limiting symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 551 participants who received AR101 or placebo, 496 were 4 to 17 years of age; of these, 250 of 372 participants (67.2%) who received active treatment, as compared with 5 of 124 participants (4.0%) who received placebo, were able to ingest a dose of 600 mg or more of peanut protein, without dose-limiting symptoms, at the exit food challenge (difference, 63.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 53.0 to 73.3; P<0.001). During the exit food challenge, the maximum severity of symptoms was moderate in 25% of the participants in the active-drug group and 59% of those in the placebo group and severe in 5% and 11%, respectively. Adverse events during the intervention period affected more than 95% of the participants 4 to 17 years of age. A total of 34.7% of the participants in the active-drug group had mild events, as compared with 50.0% of those in the placebo group; 59.7% and 44.4% of the participants, respectively, had events that were graded as moderate, and 4.3% and 0.8%, respectively, had events that were graded as severe. Efficacy was not shown in the participants 18 years of age or older. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 3 trial of oral immunotherapy in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut, treatment with AR101 resulted in higher doses of peanut protein that could be ingested without dose-limiting symptoms and in lower symptom severity during peanut exposure at the exit food challenge than placebo. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; PALISADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02635776 .).

Androgen use in hereditary angioedema: A critical appraisal and approaches to transitioning from androgens to other therapies.

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder clinically characterized by recurrent attacks of subcutaneous and mucosal swelling. Attenuated androgens have been a prophylactic treatment option to reduce the frequency of HAE attacks for > 4 decades. However, the advent of effective on-demand treatments and highly effective, more tolerable, long-term prophylactic therapies has led to a decline in the use of attenuated androgens for the management of HAE in regions where newer therapies are available. A consensus about the best approach for discontinuing or tapering off attenuated androgen therapy does not exist. Objective: To develop a consensus on androgen tapering for patients with HAE. Methods: We sent an open-ended survey about androgen tapering to 21 physicians who treat HAE, 12 of whom responded. We reviewed the collective experience of the participating physicians in combination with results from a literature review on the topic. Results: The survey and literature review underscored potential concerns related to rapid androgen withdrawal in patients with HAE, including physician and patient concerns that the frequency and severity of attacks would abruptly worsen. In addition, discontinuation of attenuated androgens may have the potential for transient adverse effects, such as an increase in the rate of attacks or effects related to hormone withdrawal. Our survey showed that physicians often taper androgens to prevent increases in HAE attacks and possible withdrawal complications. Conclusion: Based on both experiences of the physicians who responded to our survey and reports in the endocrine literature, we provided recommendations for androgen tapering. However, we noted that the likelihood of adverse effects due to androgen withdrawal in patients with HAE is poorly understood and requires further study.

Hereditary angioedema: Special considerations in children.

Patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) can experience attacks at any age; however, the onset of swelling is typically in childhood. Unlike adults, this population is uniquely vulnerable; attacks in young children may be subtle, resemble other diseases, and often lead to a delay in diagnosis. Misdiagnosis contributes to significant delays in treatment, painful attacks, increased emotional stress, unnecessary procedures, and a potential risk of death. Older children may hide their symptoms due to anxiety or fear of social isolation. Attacks typically become more severe and more frequent during and after puberty. The impact of HAE attacks on school attendance and school performance may prevent future career or education opportunities. Living with HAE poses significant psychosocial stress on children and their families. In the United States, medical treatments for acute attacks in children approved for self-administration are limited to intravenous therapies, which complicates early treatment. To provide optimal care, we suggest that physicians screen all children with a family history of HAE, appreciate the dynamic nature of the disease during adolescence, proactively assess the psychosocial impact of disease, and continually reassess the treatment plan.

Longitudinal Growth Outcomes Following First-line Treatment for Pediatric Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: No formal comparative effectiveness studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment choice on long-term growth in pediatric patients. Long-term studies of inhaled corticoid steroids in asthma, however, suggest possible effects on linear growth. The aim of this study was to compare longitudinal, anthropometric growth in children with EoE according to treatment approach. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of anthropometric growth (height and body mass index [BMI] z scores) in pediatric (<18 years of age) patients newly diagnosed with EoE across 5 clinical sites between 2005 and 2014. We compared differences in growth according to treatment approach over a 12-month period. Modification by sex and age was examined and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of results given study assumptions. RESULTS: In the 409 patients identified, the mean age and proportion male differed by treatment (P =  < 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). Baseline growth measures were associated with slight impairment of height at diagnosis (median baseline height z score of -0.1 [interquartile range -0.9, 0.8]). In general, treatment approach was not associated with any significant increase or decrease in expected growth over a 12-month period. Subtle decrease in linear growth was observed with treatment using a combined elemental and topical steroid (Δ height z score [adjusted]: -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.08, -0.01). Differences in linear growth differed by sex (P for interaction <0.01). For elemental formula in combination with topical steroids, only girls exhibited a significant decline in linear growth (Δ height z score [adjusted]: -0.24; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.17). A slight reduction in BMI was observed for patients treated with a combination of elemental diet and dietary elimination (Δ BMI z score [adjusted]: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.13, -0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of EoE, in general, is not associated with major anthropometric growth changes in most pediatric patients. Slight linear growth impairment was observed for topical steroid treatment, and sex differences in growth by treatment approach were observed. Future prospective studies should evaluate the effect of treatment on optimal growth and development and over a longer period of follow-up.

Long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To review the criteria for long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE), describe how these criteria have evolved over time, and anticipate how criteria may change in the future with the availability of new C1-INH-HAE treatment options. DATA SOURCES: Treatment guidelines, consensus statements, and expert reviews. STUDY SELECTIONS: Manuscripts that described long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with C1-INH-HAE were selected. RESULTS: Historically, patients with C1-INH-HAE were considered to be candidates for long-term prophylaxis therapy if they had at least 1 attack per month, had at least 5 days of disability per month because of C1-INH-HAE, or did not sufficiently respond to on-demand treatment. More recently, guidelines and reviews state that thresholds of number of attacks or days of disability are arbitrary and that treatment plans should be individualized to the patient's needs. Furthermore, all patients should have a comprehensive management plan that is reviewed periodically and should have at least 2 doses of on-demand treatment available. Prophylaxis therapy should be discussed as a potential treatment option for each patient; however, the decision for its use will depend on the patient's individual needs and the course of their symptoms. CONCLUSION: The criteria for long-term prophylaxis therapy in C1-INH-HAE have changed with the recognition that treatments should be individualized to the patient's needs and with the availability of new medications that have more favorable benefit-risk profiles, are easier to use, and improve patients' quality of life.

Practice Pattern Variation in Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis in the Carolinas EoE Collaborative: A Research Model in Community and Academic Practices.

OBJECTIVES: Differences in the initial management of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) by practice setting have not been well characterized. We aimed to characterize these differences for sites in the Carolinas EoE Collaborative (CEoEC), a multicenter network of academic and community practices. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of pediatric EoE patients at five CEoEC sites: University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospital, Charlotte Asthma and Allergy Specialists, Greenville Health Systems, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, and the Medical University of South Carolina Hospital. Cases of EoE were defined by consensus guidelines. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. We tested for differences among sites and used a multinomial model (polytomous regression) to assess associations between treatment and site, adjusting on patient factors. RESULTS: We identified 464 children with EoE across the CEoEC sites. The median age was highest at Wake Forest (11.4 years), the median eosinophil count was highest at UNC (69 eos/hpf), and UNC had the most male patients (82%). UNC used topical steroids for initial treatment in 86% of cases, compared with <1% in Greenville (P < 0.01). Greenville used dietary elimination more frequently than UNC (81% vs 2%, P < 0.01). Differences in treatment approach held after adjusting for potential baseline confounders. There was no significant association between patient factors and initial treatment approach. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in EoE patient factors and treatment approaches were identified across CEoEC sites and were not explained by patient or practice factors. This suggests that institutional or provider preferences drive initial treatment approaches, and that more data are needed to drive best practice decisions.

Effect of Lanadelumab Compared With Placebo on Prevention of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current treatments for long-term prophylaxis in hereditary angioedema have limitations. Objective: To assess the efficacy of lanadelumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits active plasma kallikrein, in preventing hereditary angioedema attacks. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 41 sites in Canada, Europe, Jordan, and the United States. Patients were randomized between March 3, 2016, and September 9, 2016; last day of follow-up was April 13, 2017. Randomization was 2:1 lanadelumab to placebo; patients assigned to lanadelumab were further randomized 1:1:1 to 1 of the 3 dose regimens. Patients 12 years or older with hereditary angioedema type I or II underwent a 4-week run-in period and those with 1 or more hereditary angioedema attacks during run-in were randomized. Interventions: Twenty-six-week treatment with subcutaneous lanadelumab 150 mg every 4 weeks (n = 28), 300 mg every 4 weeks (n = 29), 300 mg every 2 weeks (n = 27), or placebo (n = 41). All patients received injections every 2 weeks, with those in the every-4-week group receiving placebo in between active treatments. Main Outcome and Measures: Primary efficacy end point was the number of investigator-confirmed attacks of hereditary angioedema over the treatment period. Results: Among 125 patients randomized (mean age, 40.7 years [SD, 14.7 years]; 88 females [70.4%]; 113 white [90.4%]), 113 (90.4%) completed the study. During the run-in period, the mean number of hereditary angioedema attacks per month in the placebo group was 4.0; for the lanadelumab groups, 3.2 for the every-4-week 150-mg group; 3.7 for the every-4-week 300-mg group; and 3.5 for the every-2-week 300-mg group. During the treatment period, the mean number of attacks per month for the placebo group was 1.97; for the lanadelumab groups, 0.48 for the every-4-week 150-mg group; 0.53 for the every-4-week 300-mg group; and 0.26 for the every-2-week 300-mg group. Compared with placebo, the mean differences in the attack rate per month were -1.49 (95% CI, -1.90 to -1.08; P < .001); -1.44 (95% CI, -1.84 to -1.04; P < .001); and -1.71 (95% CI, -2.09 to -1.33; P < .001). The most commonly occurring adverse events with greater frequency in the lanadelumab treatment groups were injection site reactions (34.1% placebo, 52.4% lanadelumab) and dizziness (0% placebo, 6.0% lanadelumab). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with hereditary angioedema type I or II, treatment with subcutaneous lanadelumab for 26 weeks significantly reduced the attack rate compared with placebo. These findings support the use of lanadelumab as a prophylactic therapy for hereditary angioedema. Further research is needed to determine long-term safety and efficacy. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2015-003943-20; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02586805.

Patient satisfaction and experience with intravenously administered C1-inhibitor concentrates in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder with substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite expanded choices for effective acute treatment, prophylactic options are more limited. Intravenous C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH[IV]) is licensed and used to prevent HAE symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To better understand patient experiences with using C1-INH(IV), including level of satisfaction and types and frequency of complications. METHODS: Fifty adult members (≥18 years of age) of the US HAE Association who had HAE type I or II completed a self-administered internet survey. Eligible participants were experiencing at least 1 HAE attack per month and must have been receiving treatment with C1-INH(IV) as prophylaxis or acute therapy. RESULTS: Almost all respondents (n = 47; 94%) were using C1-INH(IV) for HAE prophylaxis. Most patients reported administration of C1-INH(IV) through a peripheral vein (n = 34) and 19 were currently (n = 17) or previously (n = 2) using a central venous port. Most respondents (62%) who used a peripheral vein to administer treatment reported having difficulty finding a usable vein or getting the infusion to work properly at least some of the time. Issues accessing veins, exhausted veins, and frequency of attacks were the main reasons physicians recommended ports to respondents. Although ports allow easier administration of therapy, 47% of respondents with ports experienced problems such as occlusion, thrombosis, and infection. Respondents using C1-INH prophylaxis reported a mean of 2.3 attacks per month during the previous 6 months. CONCLUSION: The survey results identified clinical challenges with IV HAE medication use, including venous access issues and ongoing monthly attack occurrence despite prophylactic C1-INH(IV) administration.

Berotralstat for long-term prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema in Japan: Parts 2 and 3 of the randomized APeX-J Phase III trial.

Background: Berotralstat is a once-daily oral inhibitor of plasma kallikrein for the prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) in patients ≥12 years. APeX-J aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of berotralstat in Japan. Methods: APeX-J was a Phase III trial comprising 3 parts (NCT03873116). Part 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled evaluation of berotralstat 150 or 110 mg over 24 weeks. Part 2 was a 28-week dose-blinded phase in which berotralstat-treated patients continued the same dose and placebo patients were re-randomized to berotralstat 150 or 110 mg. In Part 3, all patients remaining on study received berotralstat 150 mg in an open-label manner for up to an additional 52 weeks. The primary endpoint of Parts 2 and 3 was long-term safety and tolerability, and secondary endpoints examined effectiveness. Results: Seventeen patients entered Part 2, and 11 continued into Part 3. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 14/17 patients (82.4%) in Parts 2 or 3; the most common were nasopharyngitis, abdominal pain, cystitis, influenza, and vertigo. One patient (5.9%) experienced a drug-related TEAE (Grade 4 increased hepatic enzyme). No drug-related serious TEAEs were reported. For patients who completed 26 months of treatment with berotralstat 150 mg (n = 5), mean (standard error of the mean) monthly HAE attack rates and on-demand medication use decreased from baseline by 1.15 (0.09) attacks/month and 2.8 (0.64) doses/month, respectively. Sustained improvements were also observed in patient quality of life and treatment satisfaction. Conclusions: Long-term prophylaxis with berotralstat raised no new safety signals and was effective at reducing attacks and improving patient-reported outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03873116. Registered March 13, 2019. Retrospectively registered.

Once-Daily Oral Berotralstat for Long-Term Prophylaxis of Hereditary Angioedema: The Open-Label Extension of the APeX-2 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Berotralstat is a first-line, once-daily oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor approved for prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks in patients 12 years or older. OBJECTIVE: This analysis examined the safety and effectiveness of long-term prophylaxis with berotralstat. METHODS: APeX-2 was a phase 3, parallel-group, multicenter trial in patients with HAE caused by C1-inhibitor deficiency (NCT03485911). Part 1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of 150 and 110 mg of berotralstat over 24 weeks. In part 2, berotralstat-treated patients continued the same treatment, and placebo-treated patients were re-randomized to 150 or 110 mg of berotralstat for 24 weeks. In part 3, all patients were treated with open-label berotralstat at 150 mg, which could be continued for up to an additional 4 years. In part 3, the primary endpoint was long-term safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included HAE attack rates and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients entered part 3. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 82.7% of patients, with most being mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, abdominal pain, arthralgia, coronavirus infection, and diarrhea. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 14.8% of patients, but none were serious. For patients who completed 96 weeks of berotralstat treatment (n = 70), the mean (standard error) change in attack rate from baseline was -2.21 (0.20) attacks/mo. Clinically meaningful improvements in QoL were also observed, with the largest improvements in the functioning domain. CONCLUSION: Berotralstat was generally well tolerated, provided rapid and sustained reductions in HAE attacks and improved QoL over 96 weeks.

Hereditary and acquired complement component 1 esterase inhibitor deficiency: a review for the hematologist.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE), a rare autosomal dominant disorder, was first described in the late 19th century. The disease remained poorly understood and without therapeutic options until the latter half of the 20th century. Advances in the understanding of immunologic and hematologic pathways have shed light on HAE, a disease characterized by painful and unpredictable recurrent attacks of nonpitting edema without urticaria. Recognition that a deficiency of complement component 1 (C1) esterase inhibitor leads to overproduction of vasoactive kinins that cause angioedema paved the way for the development of early treatments. Increased understanding of the role of bradykinin in hereditary and acquired forms of C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency has led to the development of more targeted treatments for this painful, debilitating and potentially life-threatening disease.

Current options for prophylactic treatment of hereditary angioedema in the United States: patient-based considerations.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) results from mutations in the C1-esterase inhibitor (C1 INH) gene that decrease production of C1 INH or render it dysfunctional. HAE is characterized by recurrent, unpredictable, bradykinin-mediated edema of the extremities, face, genitalia, trunk, gastrointestinal tract, or upper airway. Attacks causing laryngeal edema can be fatal. Patients with HAE need medications for acute attacks; some also require prophylaxis. Management requires consideration of the patient's disease burden and effect on the patient's quality of life. This review examines an individualized approach to identifying HAE patients who may benefit from prophylaxis. A literature search was performed for HAE and prophylaxis. HAE guidelines, case reports, safety studies, and randomized, controlled clinical prophylaxis trials were selected. Authors provided cases demonstrating individualized prophylaxis. U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved options for prophylaxis of HAE include attenuated androgens and nanofiltered C1 INH (C1 INH-nf). In other countries, pasteurized C1 INH and purified C1 INH are also available. Alternative therapies include fresh frozen plasma for preprocedural prophylaxis and antifibrinolytics for long-term prophylaxis. Attenuated androgens reduce attack frequency in many patients. Adverse effects include weight gain, virilization, increased hair growth, hypercholesterolemia, depression, and liver adenomas. C1 INH-nf reduces frequency of attacks and is well tolerated. Each patient with HAE has unique needs, based on the nature and frequency of past attacks, proximity to a medical center, occupation, and the patient's wishes. These factors should be used to create a patient-centered approach to management of HAE.

Examining unmet needs in the management of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease driven by a type 2 immune response and characterized by the accumulation of immune cells (eosinophils, basophils, and mast cells) in the esophagus. Patients may present with EoE at any age, and its prevalence is similar across age groups in the United States. If EoE is suspected, an endoscopy with biopsy is required to confirm the diagnosis; endoscopy allows clinicians to evaluate for the presence of rings, furrows, exudates, edemas, and/or strictures and biopsy helps to identify the associated histological changes, including eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa. Symptoms of EoE vary by age and include dysphagia, impaction, regurgitation, chest and/or abdominal pain, and vomiting. Allergic comorbidities (eg, allergic rhinitis, asthma, or atopic dermatitis) are common among patients with EoE, which suggests that there may be a shared pathophysiology underlying these conditions. The symptoms of EoE vary widely from patient to patient, and delays in diagnosis are common. Disease progression may lead to lasting damage, including scarring and fibrosis of the esophagus, underscoring the need for early diagnosis and treatment to reduce the clinical, economic, and humanistic burden associated with EoE. Current standard of care treatment options include diet therapy, esophageal dilation, proton pump inhibitors, and topical swallowed corticosteroids; however, these treatments may not provide optimal disease management over the long term. The symptoms of EoE, its complications, and disease management considerations (eg, dietary limitations) are associated with diminished quality of life. There remains an unmet need for long-term management options. It is important for stakeholders to understand the current treatment landscape and unmet needs when considering the assessment of future therapies.

Angioedema: differential diagnosis and acute management.

A clinical vignette illustrates a typical presentation of a patient seeking help for acute angioedema. Despite the risks of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) exposure, it is critical to evaluate patients with acute angioedema in person, because there is always the potential for angioedema to progress to the head, neck, or lungs, which can rapidly compromise the airways and require immediate intervention to avoid potential asphyxiation. There are three mediators of angioedema, histamine, leukotriene, or bradykinin, each requiring different management. This article provides clinicians essential information for differentiating between these types of angioedema, including an overview of the underlying pathogenies of angioedema, and the subjective and objective findings that are useful in differentiating between angioedema types. The article ends with the appropriate management for each type of acute angioedema, including the medications approved by the FDA for on-demand treatment of an HAE attack.

Optimal Management of Hereditary Angioedema: Shared Decision-Making.

All patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) must have access to on-demand therapy to treat attacks and may benefit from prophylactic therapy to reduce the attack frequency. Treatment decisions should be individualized, based on patient preferences and needs. One method for facilitating individualized therapy is shared decision-making (SDM), a widely used methodology for making treatment decisions among multiple therapeutic options. We propose a three-phase "3D" model (Discover, Discuss, Decide) for SDM in HAE. The Discover phase focuses on improving the physician's understanding of the patient's needs and understanding of the available therapeutic choices. The Discuss phase considers the alternatives, allowing a collaborative, informed treatment selection in the Decision phase. The 3D model is an ongoing, iterative process based on the patient's changing needs and response to therapy. Uncovering the patient's therapy goals through appropriate questions during these phases can help uncover relevant information for treatment selection information. SDM based on the 3D model can be a beneficial tool for optimizing therapy in HAE.

Assessment and management of disease burden and quality of life in patients with hereditary angioedema: a consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease characterized by unpredictable, potentially life-threatening attacks, resulting in significant physical and emotional burdens for patients and families. To optimize care for patients with HAE, an individualized management plan should be considered in partnership with the physician, requiring comprehensive assessment of the patient's frequency and severity of attacks, disease burden, and therapeutic control. Although several guidelines and consensus papers have been published concerning the diagnosis and treatment of HAE, there has been limited specific clinical guidance on the assessment of disease burden and quality of life (QoL) in this patient population. Practical guidance is critical in supporting effective long-term clinical management of HAE and improving patient outcomes. The objective of this review is to provide evidence-based guidelines for an individualized assessment of disease burden and QoL in patients with HAE. METHODS: A consensus meeting was held on February 29, 2020, consisting of 9 HAE experts from the United States and Europe with extensive clinical experience in the treatment of HAE. Consensus statements were developed based on a preliminary literature review and discussions from the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Final statements reflect the consensus of the expert panel and include the assessment of attack severity, evaluation of disease burden, and long-term clinical management of HAE caused by C1-esterase inhibitor deficiency. Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing HAE attack severity and frequency are available and valuable tools; however, attack frequency and severity are insufficient markers of disease severity unless they are evaluated in the broader context of the effect on an individual patient's QoL. QoL assessments should be individualized for each patient and minimally, they should address the interference of HAE with work, school, social, family, and physical activity, along with access to and burden of HAE treatment. Advances in HAE therapies offer the opportunity for comprehensive, individualized treatment plans, allowing patients to achieve minimal attack burden with reduced disease and treatment burden. CONCLUSION: This consensus report builds on existing guidelines by expanding the assessment of disease burden and QoL measures for patients with HAE.