Search

Ian D Pavord,1 Salman Siddiqui,2 Alberto Papi,3 Jonathan Corren,4 Lawrence D Sher,5 Philip Bardin,6 David Langton,7 Hae-Sim Park,8 Megan S Rice,9 Yamo Deniz,10 Paul Rowe,11 Heribert W Staudinger,11 Naimish Patel,11 Marcella Ruddy,10 Neil MH Graham,10 Ariel Teper11 1Respiratory Medicine Unit and Oxford Respiratory National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 2University of Leicester and Leicester National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (Respiratory Theme), Leicester, UK; 3Department of Respiratory Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 4David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 5Peninsula Research Associates, Rolling Hills Estate, CA, USA; 6Department of Lung and Sleep Medicine, Monash University and Medical Centre, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 7Department of Thoracic Medicine, Frankston Hospital, Frankston, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 8Ajou University Hospital, Suwon, South Korea; 9Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA; 10Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY, USA; 11Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USACorrespondence: Ian D PavordNDM Research Building, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7FZ, UKTel +44 (0)1865 612897Email ian.pavord@ndm.ox.ac.ukPurpose: The Phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST study in patients aged ≥ 12 years with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab 200 mg and 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) vs matched placebo in the overall population. This post hoc analysis assessed dupilumab efficacy by disease severity as evidenced by baseline % predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).Patients and Methods: Severe asthma exacerbation rates, change from baseline in FEV1, asthma control, quality of life, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels over the 52-week treatment period were assessed in patients with elevated type 2 inflammation biomarkers stratified by ICS dose and FEV1% predicted at baseline.Results: In patients with elevated baseline eosinophils, dupilumab 200 mg and 300 mg q2w vs placebo reduced severe exacerbation rates by 50% (P=0.06) and 67% (P=0.001), respectively, in those with medium-dose ICS/FEV1% predicted 60– 90%, and by 59% (P< 0.001) and 47% (P=0.006) in those with high-dose ICS/FEV1% predicted < 60%, improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at Week 12 by 0.16L (P=0.005) and 0.08L (P=0.13), and by 0.20L (P=0.003) and 0.21L (P< 0.001), respectively, in the same subgroups. Dupilumab vs placebo also improved asthma control and quality of life and suppressed FeNO levels in all patient subgroups with similar results observed irrespective of baseline biomarker status or disease severity.Conclusion: Dupilumab reduced severe exacerbations and improved lung function, asthma control and quality of life in patients with elevated baseline eosinophils irrespective of baseline ICS dose or FEV1% predicted.Keywords: asthma, biomarkers, dupilumab, exacerbation, FEV1

Background: With the future epidemiology and evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uncertain, the use of safe and effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in pediatric populations remains important., Methods: We report data from two open-label substudies of an ongoing phase 1/2/3 master study (NCT05543616) investigating the safety and immunogenicity of a variant-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine encoding ancestral and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike proteins (bivalent BNT162b2). The open-label groups presented here evaluate dose 4 with bivalent BNT162b2 in 6-month- to <12-year-olds who previously received three original (monovalent) BNT162b2 doses. In 6-month- to <5-year-olds, primary immunogenicity objectives were to demonstrate superiority (neutralizing titer) and noninferiority (seroresponse rate) to Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and noninferiority (neutralizing titer and seroresponse rate) to SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strains in participants who received bivalent BNT162b2 dose 4 compared with a matched group who received three doses of original BNT162b2 in the pivotal pediatric study (NCT04816643). In 5- to <12-year-olds, primary immunogenicity comparisons were descriptive. Reactogenicity and safety following vaccination were evaluated., Results: In 6-month- to <5-year-olds, dose 4 with bivalent BNT162b2 met predefined immunogenicity superiority and noninferiority criteria against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and ancestral strains when compared with dose 3 of original BNT162b2. In 5- to <12-year-olds, bivalent BNT162b2 induced robust Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and ancestral strain neutralizing titers comparable with dose 3 of original BNT162b2. The safety profile for dose 4 of bivalent BNT162b2 given as dose 4 was consistent with that of original BNT162b2 in 6-month- to <12-year-olds. Reactogenicity events were generally mild to moderate. No adverse events led to discontinuation., Conclusions: These safety and immunogenicity data support a favorable benefit-risk profile for a variant-adapted BNT162b2 in children <12 years old., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.)

Background: Telazorlimab is a humanized anti-OX40 monoclonal antibody being studied for treatment of T-cell-mediated diseases., Objective: This randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2b dose-range finding study investigated efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of telazorlimab in subjects with atopic dermatitis., Methods: In this 2-part study (NCT03568162), adults (≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe disease were randomized to various regimens of subcutaneous telazorlimab or placebo for 16 weeks' blinded treatment, followed by 38 weeks' open-label treatment and 12 weeks' drug-free follow-up. Telazorlimab treatment groups (following a loading dose) in part 1 were 300 mg every 2 weeks; 300 mg every 4 weeks; or 75 mg every 4 weeks. Part 2 evaluated telazorlimab 600 mg every 2 weeks. The primary end point was percentage change from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) at week 16. Safety assessments included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events., Results: The study randomized 313 subjects in part 1 and 149 in part 2. At 16 weeks, the least squares mean percentage change from baseline in EASI was significantly greater in subjects receiving telazorlimab 300 mg every 2 weeks (part 1) and 600 mg every 2 weeks (part 2) versus placebo (-54.4% vs -34.2% for part 1 and -59.0% vs -41.8% for part 2, P  = .008 for both). Telazorlimab was well tolerated, with similar distribution of adverse events between telazorlimab- and placebo-treated subjects in both part 1 and part 2., Conclusion: Telazorlimab, administered subcutaneously at 300 mg every 2 weeks or 600 mg every 2 weeks following a loading dose, was well tolerated and induced significant and progressive clinical improvement in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Competing Interests: Supported by Ichnos Sciences (previously Glenmark Pharmaceuticals SA). The sponsor participated in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the report for publication. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: B. Rewerska, L. D. Sher, S. Alpizar, S. Pauser, G. Pulka, and M. Machkova have received research funding as principal investigators from Ichnos Sciences. V. CA, J. Macoin, V. Anstett, R. Turrini, and C. Konto are current employees of Ichnos Sciences. S. GN is a current employee of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals. N. Mozaffarian, Y. Salhi, W. Jabert, G. Gudi, S. Blein, and M.-A. Doucey are former employees of Ichnos Sciences (formerly Glenmark Pharmaceuticals). C. Martinet is an employee of Keyrus, a contractor for Ichnos Sciences., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Fungal sensitization (FS) exacerbates asthma in patients who have elevated type 2 inflammatory response. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases., Objective: This post hoc analysis, funded by the manufacturers of dupilumab, was conducted to assess dupilumab efficacy in patients from the phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST trial (NCT02414854) and TRAVERSE open-label extension (NCT02134028) study who had uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma with type 2 inflammatory phenotype (defined as blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells/μL or FeNO ≥25 ppb) and with FS (defined as IgE specific to Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus fumigatus or Cladosporium herbarum >0.35 IU/mL)., Methods: We evaluated annualized rate of severe exacerbations (AER), change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), asthma control (per 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-5]) and biomarker levels (blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO], total IgE, fungal-specific IgEs, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine [TARC] and eotaxin-3)., Results: Dupilumab vs. placebo reduced AER, improved pre-BD FEV 1 and asthma control (ACQ-5), and reduced serum IgE levels, blood eosinophil count, TARC, eotaxin-3 and FeNO in patients both with and without FS after 52 weeks of treatment in QUEST. Reductions in asthma exacerbation rates and improvements in all other variables were sustained over the TRAVERSE open-label extension study., Conclusion: Dupilumab demonstrated efficacy during prolonged treatment in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma with FS., (© 2023 Sanofi. Clinical & Experimental Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The open-label extension TRAVERSE study (NCT02134028) assessed dupilumab long-term safety and efficacy in patients who completed Phase 2/3 dupilumab asthma studies. This post hoc analysis evaluated long-term efficacy in type 2 patients with and without evidence of allergic asthma who enrolled in TRAVERSE from Phase 3 QUEST (NCT02414854) and Phase 2b (NCT01854047) studies. Non-type 2 patients with evidence of allergic asthma were also assessed., Methods: Unadjusted annualized exacerbation rates during parent study and TRAVERSE treatment period, and changes from parent study baseline in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) and in 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) scores were assessed in patients from QUEST and Phase 2b; change from parent study baseline in total IgE level was assessed in patients enrolled from Phase 2b., Results: 2062 patients from Phase 2b and QUEST enrolled in TRAVERSE. Of these, 969 were type 2 with evidence of allergic asthma; 710 were type 2 without evidence of allergic asthma; and 194 were non-type 2 with evidence of allergic asthma at parent study baseline. In these populations, reductions in exacerbation rates observed during parent studies were sustained during TRAVERSE. Type 2 patients who switched from placebo arm to dupilumab in TRAVERSE experienced similar reductions in severe exacerbation rates, and improvements in lung function and asthma control to those patients who already received dupilumab during the parent study., Conclusion: Dupilumab efficacy was sustained for up to 3 years in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe type 2 inflammatory asthma, with or without evidence of allergic asthma.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02134028.

Background: In a parallel-group, international, phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04762680), we evaluated prototype (D614) and Beta (B.1.351) variant recombinant spike protein booster vaccines with AS03-adjuvant (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03)., Methods: Adults, previously primed with mRNA (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273), adenovirus-vectored (Ad26.CoV2.S, ChAdOx1nCoV-19) or protein (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 [monovalent D614; MV(D614)]) vaccines were enrolled between 29 July 2021 and 22 February 2022. Participants were stratified by age (18-55 and ≥ 56 years) and received one of the following CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 booster formulations: MV(D614) (n = 1285), MV(B.1.351) (n = 707) or bivalent D614 + B.1.351 (BiV; n = 625). Unvaccinated adults who tested negative on a SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic test (control group, n = 479) received two primary doses, 21 days apart, of MV(D614). Anti-D614G and anti-B.1.351 antibodies were evaluated using validated pseudovirus (lentivirus) neutralization (PsVN) assay 14 days post-booster (day [D]15) in 18-55-year-old BNT162b2-primed participants and compared with those pre-booster (D1) and on D36 in 18-55-year-old controls (primary immunogenicity endpoints). PsVN titers to Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/5 subvariants were also evaluated. Safety was evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period. Planned interim analyses are presented up to 14 days post-last vaccination for immunogenicity and over a median duration of 5 months for safety., Findings: All three boosters elicited robust anti-D614G or -B.1.351 PsVN responses for mRNA, adenovirus-vectored and protein vaccine-primed groups. Among BNT162b2-primed adults (18-55 years), geometric means of the individual post-booster versus pre-booster titer ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) were: for MV (D614), 23.37 (18.58-29.38) (anti-D614G); for MV(B.1.351), 35.41 (26.71-46.95) (anti-B.1.351); and for BiV, 14.39 (11.39-18.28) (anti-D614G) and 34.18 (25.84-45.22 (anti-B.1.351). GMT ratios (98.3% CI) versus post-primary vaccination GMTs in controls, were: for MV(D614) booster, 2.16 (1.69; 2.75) [anti-D614G]; for MV(B.1.351), 1.96 (1.54; 2.50) [anti-B.1.351]; and for BiV, 2.34 (1.84; 2.96) [anti-D614G] and 1.39 (1.09; 1.77) [anti-B.1.351]. All booster formulations elicited cross-neutralizing antibodies against Omicron BA.2 (across priming vaccine subgroups), Omicron BA.1 (BNT162b2-primed participants) and Omicron BA.4/5 (BNT162b2-primed participants and MV D614-primed participants). Similar patterns in antibody responses were observed for participants aged ≥56 years. Reactogenicity tended to be transient and mild-to-moderate severity in all booster groups. No safety concerns were identified., Interpretation: CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 boosters demonstrated acceptable safety and elicited robust neutralizing antibodies against multiple variants, regardless of priming vaccine., Funding: Sanofi and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)., Competing Interests: GdB, JW, AP, MSR, HA, MIB, RMCa, RF, BF, JG, M-HG, SG, OH, RM, JP, NR, RMCh and SSr are Sanofi employees. GdB, AP, MIB, BF, OH, NR, RMCh and SSr hold stock or stock options in Sanofi. SSa was a Sanofi employee at the time of study conduct and held shares and/or stock options in the company at the time of study conduct. GdB, SSr, RMCh, and SSa are inventors on a pending patent application filed by Sanofi and GSK for the development of the CoV-2 dTM vaccine. MAC, LS and MK are employed by GSK and hold restricted shares in the GSK group of companies. FTDS was employed by GSK and held restricted shares in the GSK group of companies, at the time of the study. FMT declares trial fees paid to their institution by Sanofi; honoraria received from GSK group of companies, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi, MSD, Moderna, Biofabri, AstraZeneca, Novavax, Janssen; meeting and/or travel fees received from Pfizer Inc, MSD, GSK and Sanofi; data safety monitoring board or advisory board participation for Pfizer and Biofabri; being a member of ETAGE–WHO Europe, coordinator of the Spanish Pediatric Critical Trials Network and coordinator of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Vaccines Safety of Santiago de Compostela; and payments made to their institution for their role as principal investigator in randomized controlled trials for Ablynx, Abbot, Seqirus, Sanofi, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Janssen, Medimmune, Novavax, Novartis and GSK. DMRM declares that her institution received funding from Sanofi. AF receives research funding, paid to his employers, from Sanofi both for work related to this study and other unrelated vaccine trials and from GSK for other unrelated studies. He receives research funding from other vaccine manufacturers relating to trials and studies and undertakes paid consultancy related to a number of developmental antimicrobial drugs and vaccines. OL declares that their institution received funding for conducting the trial. NLM received travel support from Sanofi and chaired a Scientific Advisory Board for them, unrelated to current study. LDS received a research grant from Sanofi. SD, SA, DB, AB, DD, PG, JAH, CR and AW declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Severe asthma impacts quality of life (QoL), including dyspnea, sleep, and activity limitation. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukins-4 and -13, which are key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation. Phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA VENTURE (NCT02528214) and LIBERTY ASTHMA TRAVERSE open-label extension (NCT02134028) evaluated dupilumab 300 mg vs placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks (VENTURE) and dupilumab only for an additional 48 to 96 weeks (TRAVERSE) in patients with oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent severe asthma., Objective: To assess dupilumab's impact on Asthma QoL Questionnaire (AQLQ) items related to breathing symptoms, sleep, and activity limitation, and on OCS reduction., Methods: The proportion of patients with AQLQ scores of 6 or 7 for breathing symptoms-, sleeping-, and activity-related items in VENTURE and TRAVERSE, together with OCS dose reductions in VENTURE., Results: In VENTURE, significantly greater proportions of dupilumab- vs placebo-treated patients achieved scores of 6 or 7 by week 24 in breathing symptoms-related (42.7%-60.2% vs 22.4%-39.3%), sleeping-related (45.6%-65.0% vs 27.1%-47.7%), and activity-related (44.7%-51.5% vs 22.4%-34.6%) AQLQ items. Improvements were maintained through TRAVERSE in the dupilumab/dupilumab group and increased to dupilumab treatment levels in the placebo/dupilumab group. Significant OCS dose reductions were observed in VENTURE; up to 90% and 60% of dupilumab-treated vs 65% and 41% of placebo-treated patients with AQLQ scores of 6 or 7 in breathing symptoms-, sleeping-, and activity-related items achieved greater than or equal to 50% dose reduction and eliminated OCS at week 24, respectively., Conclusion: In patients with severe OCS-dependent asthma, dupilumab improved QoL related to breathing symptoms, sleep, and activity limitation, and reduced OCS use., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02528214 and NCT02134028., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Safe and effective vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are urgently needed in young children., Methods: We conducted a phase 1 dose-finding study and are conducting an ongoing phase 2-3 safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy trial of the BNT162b2 vaccine in healthy children 6 months to 11 years of age. We present results for children 6 months to less than 2 years of age and those 2 to 4 years of age through the data-cutoff dates (April 29, 2022, for safety and immunogenicity and June 17, 2022, for efficacy). In the phase 2-3 trial, participants were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive two 3-μg doses of BNT162b2 or placebo. On the basis of preliminary immunogenicity results, a third 3-μg dose (≥8 weeks after dose 2) was administered starting in January 2022, which coincided with the emergence of the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant. Immune responses at 1 month after doses 2 and 3 in children 6 months to less than 2 years of age and those 2 to 4 years of age were immunologically bridged to responses after dose 2 in persons 16 to 25 years of age who received 30 μg of BNT162b2 in the pivotal trial., Results: During the phase 1 dose-finding study, two doses of BNT162b2 were administered 21 days apart to 16 children 6 months to less than 2 years of age (3-μg dose) and 48 children 2 to 4 years of age (3-μg or 10-μg dose). The 3-μg dose level was selected for the phase 2-3 trial; 1178 children 6 months to less than 2 years of age and 1835 children 2 to 4 years of age received BNT162b2, and 598 and 915, respectively, received placebo. Immunobridging success criteria for the geometric mean ratio and seroresponse at 1 month after dose 3 were met in both age groups. BNT162b2 reactogenicity events were mostly mild to moderate, with no grade 4 events. Low, similar incidences of fever were reported after receipt of BNT162b2 (7% among children 6 months to <2 years of age and 5% among those 2 to 4 years of age) and placebo (6 to 7% among children 6 months to <2 years of age and 4 to 5% among those 2 to 4 years of age). The observed overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic Covid-19 in children 6 months to 4 years of age was 73.2% (95% confidence interval, 43.8 to 87.6) from 7 days after dose 3 (on the basis of 34 cases)., Conclusions: A three-dose primary series of 3-μg BNT162b2 was safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in children 6 months to 4 years of age. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04816643.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Many patients with severe asthma require chronic corticosteroid treatment to maintain asthma control., Research Question: Are the reduction in oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and the clinical efficacy observed with dupilumab treatment maintained long-term in patients with severe OCS-dependent asthma?, Study Design and Methods: The LIBERTY ASTHMA TRAVERSE study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02134028) was a multinational, multicenter, single-arm, open-label extension study in patients ≥ 12 years of age with asthma who participated in previous dupilumab studies. Treatment consisted of dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks for up to 96 weeks. In this analysis, we present the data from patients who initially enrolled in the LIBERTY ASTHMA VENTURE study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02528214), a 24-week placebo-controlled study of dupilumab in patients with OCS-dependent severe asthma, and continued in the TRAVERSE study. The subgroups analyzed were: those who received dupilumab in both (dupilumab/dupilumab group) and those who received placebo in the VENTURE study and dupilumab in the TRAVERSE study (placebo/dupilumab group). Outcomes included OCS use, exacerbation rates, and measures of lung function and asthma control., Results: Ninety patients treated with dupilumab/dupilumab and 97 patients treated with placebo/dupilumab in the VENTURE study were enrolled and treated in the TRAVERSE study, with a mean OCS dosage of 11.0 mg/d (dupilumab) and 11.6 mg/d (placebo) at VENTURE study baseline. At TRAVERSE week 0, the mean daily OCS dosage was 3.1 mg/d and 6.4 mg/d (percentage decrease from the VENTURE study baseline, 68.8% and 41.3%) for the dupilumab/dupilumab group and placebo/dupilumab group, respectively, and decreased to 2.2 mg/d and 4.9 mg/d (78.3% and 53.4%) at week 48 and to 1.2 mg/d and 3.0 mg/d (89.3% and 74.4%) at week 96, respectively. Exacerbation rates were low during the TRAVERSE study. Further improvements from the VENTURE to TRAVERSE studies also were seen in FEV 1 and 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire scores. Safety findings were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile., Interpretation: In the open-label TRAVERSE study, dupilumab demonstrated the ability to sustain the OCS dosage reduction from the parent OCS-sparing study, while maintaining a low exacerbation rate and improved lung function., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos.: NCT02134028 (TRAVERSE) and NCT02528214 (VENTURE); URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment options for peanut allergy are limited. In previous clinical trials, epicutaneous immunotherapy with a patch containing 250-μg peanut protein (Viaskin Peanut 250 μg [VP250]) was well tolerated and statistically superior to placebo in desensitizing peanut-allergic children., Objective: To examine the safety of VP250 in children, using a study design approximating potential real-world use., Methods: REAL LIfe Use and Safety of EPIT (REALISE) is a phase 3 multicenter study consisting of a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled period followed by open-label active treatment. Children aged 4 to 11 years with physician diagnosis of peanut allergy received daily treatment with placebo (6 months) or VP250 (up to 36 months). Data from the 6-month, randomized, controlled phase of REALISE are reported., Results: Three hundred ninety-three children were randomized 3:1 to receive VP250 (n = 294) or placebo (n = 99) for 6 months; 284 (72.3%) children had a history of peanut anaphylaxis. According to parent diary, all participants receiving VP250 and 83.8% receiving placebo reported at least 1 episode of local skin reaction, with frequency decreasing over time. Only 4 participants (1.4%) receiving VP250 discontinued because of adverse events (AEs). Epinephrine was administered for allergic reactions attributed to VP250 in 7 children (2.4%), of whom 5 remained in the study; none involved severe anaphylaxis. Overall, AE rates were similar among participants with and without a history of peanut anaphylaxis., Conclusions: In a study designed to mirror real-world use, VP250 was observed to be well tolerated in peanut-allergic children, consistent with previous phase 2b and 3 studies., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial., Methods: This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here., Findings: Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group., Interpretation: Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination., Funding: Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SSr, MIB, A-LC, AC, RMC, BF, HJ, YM, ER, NR, DvB, GdB, RC, M-HG, DL, RM, SM, CM, CAD, and SSa are Sanofi Pasteur employees. SSr, MIB, HJ, CM, and SSa own stock or stock options; A-LC, NR, and M-HG hold shares or restricted shares; and RMC reports owning shareholder and vesting options in Sanofi Pasteur. SSr, RMC, GdB, CAD, and SSa are inventors on a pending patent application filed by Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for the development of the CoV-2 dTM vaccine. LS, MK, MAC, and FT-D-S are employed by, and hold restricted shares in, the GSK group of companies. AJ was contracted by Sanofi Pasteur. DD received funding from Sanofi Pasteur for his institution, George Washington University, to serve as a clinical site for the vaccine trial. NG reports receiving funding and study materials from Sanofi and funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) through the COVID-19 Prevention Network (CoVPN), which provides research grants to her institution, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. MCK received NIAID funding support for the current study, paid to the clinical trials site for the CoVPN and HIV vaccine trials network; Sanofi Pasteur contracted the site to do this clinical trial. DMRM received a research grant from Sanofi Pasteur for this study. OO received a Gilead Sciences grant paid to Yale, and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences. OO also reports that Gilead, Integrity CE, and Medscape paid for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, or educational events and that Gilead and ViiV Healthcare paid for their participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board. VNR received funding from Sanofi for the CoVPN and Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Units for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and payments from Pfizer to her institution for the conduct of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. RS received clinical trial investigator site contracts with AES Synexus. NGR received a grant from Sanofi Pasteur to do this study and received grants from Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer, Quidel, and Lilly in the past 36 months. NGR received a payment from the Infectious Disease Association of California and participated on advisory or safety monitoring boards for Micron, ICON, and The Emmes Company; NGR also reports having a leadership or fiduciary role (paid or unpaid) for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit and Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group. LDS received a research grant from Sanofi Pasteur and SRW and JW were contracted by Sanofi Pasteur. AB, BJE, NLM, SSM, MKJ, SR, JS, TT, and JT declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Children with moderate-to-severe asthma continue to have disease complications despite the receipt of standard-of-care therapy. The monoclonal antibody dupilumab has been approved for the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma as well as with other type 2 inflammatory diseases., Methods: In this 52-week phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 408 children between the ages of 6 and 11 years who had uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma to receive a subcutaneous injection of dupilumab (at a dose of 100 mg for those weighing ≤30 kg and 200 mg for those weighing >30 kg) or matched placebo every 2 weeks. All the children continued to receive a stable dose of standard background therapy. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the percentage of predicted prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV 1 ) at week 12 and in the score on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 Interviewer-Administered (ACQ-7-IA) at week 24. End points were evaluated in the two primary efficacy populations who had either a type 2 inflammatory asthma phenotype (≥150 blood eosinophils per cubic millimeter or a fraction of exhaled nitric oxide of ≥20 ppb at baseline) or a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline., Results: In patients with the type 2 inflammatory phenotype, the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.42) with dupilumab and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.03) with placebo (relative risk reduction in the dupilumab group, 59.3%; 95% CI, 39.5 to 72.6; P<0.001). The mean (±SE) change from baseline in the ppFEV 1 was 10.5±1.0 percentage points with dupilumab and 5.3±1.4 percentage points with placebo (mean difference, 5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 8.3; P<0.001). Dupilumab also resulted in significantly better asthma control than placebo (P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the patients with an eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Among children with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, those who received add-on dupilumab had fewer asthma exacerbations and better lung function and asthma control than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; Liberty Asthma VOYAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02948959.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: CoV2 preS dTM is a stabilised pre-fusion spike protein vaccine produced in a baculovirus expression system being developed against SARS-CoV-2. We present interim safety and immunogenicity results of the first-in-human study of the CoV2 preS dTM vaccine with two different adjuvant formulations., Methods: This phase 1-2, randomised, double-blind study is being done in healthy, SARS-CoV-2-seronegative adults in ten clinical research centres in the USA. Participants were stratified by age (18-49 years and ≥50 years) and randomly assigned using an interactive response technology system with block randomisation (blocks of varying size) to receive one dose (on day 1) or two doses (on days 1 and 22) of placebo or candidate vaccine, containing low-dose (effective dose 1·3 μg) or high-dose (2·6 μg) antigen with adjuvant AF03 (Sanofi Pasteur) or AS03 (GlaxoSmithKline) or unadjuvanted high-dose antigen (18-49 years only). Primary endpoints were safety, assessed up to day 43, and immunogenicity, measured as SARS-C0V-2 neutralising antibodies (geometric mean titres), assessed on days 1, 22, and 36 serum samples. Safety was assessed according to treatment received in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose. Neutralising antibody titres were assessed in the per-protocol analysis set for immunogenicity, which included participants who received at least one dose, met all inclusion and exclusion criteria, had no protocol deviation, had negative results in the neutralisation test at baseline, and had at least one valid post-dose serology sample. This planned interim analysis reports data up to 43 days after the first vaccination; participants in the trial will be followed up for 12 months after the last study injection. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04537208, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Sept 3 and Sept 29, 2020, 441 individuals (299 aged 18-49 years and 142 aged ≥50 years) were randomly assigned to one of the 11 treatment groups. The interim safety analyses included 439 (>99%) of 441 randomly assigned participants (299 aged 18-49 years and 140 aged ≥50 years). Neutralising antibody titres were analysed in 326 (74%) of 441 participants (235 [79%] of 299 aged 18-49 years and 91 [64%] of 142 aged ≥50 years). There were no vaccine-related unsolicited immediate adverse events, serious adverse events, medically attended adverse events classified as severe, or adverse events of special interest. Among all study participants, solicited local and systemic reactions of any grade after two vaccine doses were reported in 81% (95% CI 61-93; 21 of 26) of participants in the low-dose plus AF03 group, 93% (84-97; 74 of 80) in the low-dose plus AS03 group, 89% (70-98; 23 of 26) in the high-dose plus AF03 group, 95% (88-99; 81 of 85) in the high-dose plus AS03 group, 29% (10-56; five of 17) in the unadjuvanted high-dose group, and 21% (8-40; six of 29) in the placebo group. A single vaccine dose did not generate neutralising antibody titres above placebo levels in any group at days 22 or 36. Among participants aged 18-49 years, neutralising antibody titres after two vaccine doses were 13·1 (95% CI 6·40-26·9) in the low-dose plus AF03 group, 20·5 (13·1-32·1) in the low-dose plus AS03 group, 43·2 (20·6-90·4) in the high-dose plus AF03 group, 75·1 (50·5-112·0) in the high-dose plus AS03 group, 5·00 (not calculated) in the unadjuvanted high-dose group, and 5·00 (not calculated) in the placebo group. Among participants aged 50 years or older, neutralising antibody titres after two vaccine doses were 8·62 (1·90-39·0) in the low-dose plus AF03 group, 12·9 (7·09-23·4) in the low-dose plus AS03 group, 12·3 (4·35-35·0) in the high-dose plus AF03 group, 52·3 (25·3-108·0) in the high-dose plus AS03 group, and 5·00 (not calculated) in the placebo group., Interpretation: The lower than expected immune responses, especially in the older age groups, and the high reactogenicity after dose two were probably due to higher than anticipated host-cell protein content and lower than planned antigen doses in the formulations tested, which was discovered during characterisation studies on the final bulk drug substance. Further development of the AS03-adjuvanted candidate vaccine will focus on identifying the optimal antigen formulation and dose., Funding: Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although chronic stress is an important risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) onset, the underlying mechanisms driving such pathophysiological complications remain relatively unknown. Here, dysregulation of innate stress response systems and the effects of downstream mediators are strongly implicated, with the vascular endothelium emerging as a primary target of excessive glucocorticoid and catecholamine action. Therefore, this review article explores the development of stress-related endothelial dysfunction by focusing on the following: 1 ) assessing the phenomenon of stress and complexities surrounding this notion, 2 ) discussing mechanistic links between chronic stress and endothelial dysfunction, and 3 ) evaluating the utility of various preclinical models currently employed to study mechanisms underlying the onset of stress-mediated complications such as endothelial dysfunction. The data reveal that preclinical models play an important role in our efforts to gain an increased understanding of mechanisms underlying stress-mediated endothelial dysfunction. It is our understanding that this provides a good foundation going forward, and we propose that further efforts should be made to 1 ) more clearly define the concept of stress and 2 ) standardize protocols of animal models with specific guidelines to better indicate the mental complications that are simulated.

Background: A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) has been developed, which allows for lower doses of fluticasone propionate (Fp) and Fp/salmeterol (FS) for the treatment of patients with asthma., Objective: This phase III, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study (NCT02141854) evaluated the efficacy and safety of Fp MDPI and FS MDPI versus placebo MDPI., Methods: Patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma who previously took an inhaled corticosteroid with or without a long-acting beta-agonist entered a 14- to 21-day run-in period, during which they received single-blind, low-dose Fp MDPI 50 μg (1 inhalation twice daily [b.i.d.]) and used albuterol hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for rescue. The patients who continued to meet eligibility criteria (N = 728) were randomized to Fp MDPI (100 or 200 μg), FS MDPI (100 μg/12.5 μg or 200 μg/12.5 μg), or placebo (1 inhalation b.i.d.). Primary efficacy end points were the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the baseline-adjusted area under the FEV1 curve 12 hours after the dose at week 12. Secondary efficacy end points were A.M. peak expiratory flow, asthma symptom scores, albuterol HFA MDI use, time to patient withdrawal, Asthma Quality of Life scores, and time to 15% and 12% improvement from baseline in FEV1. Safety end points were monitored., Results: Fp MDPI and FS MDPI significantly improved both primary end points compared with placebo (p < 0.05). FS MDPI significantly improved both end points versus the corresponding Fp MDPI dose (p < 0.05), with improvement also greater for FS MDPI 100 μg/12.5 μg versus Fp MDPI 200 μg (p < 0.05). Both active treatments improved a variety of secondary end points and exhibited a safety profile consistent with the drug classes., Conclusion: Delivery of Fp and FS via the novel MDPI provided significant clinical benefits and was well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.

Background: Little data in the literature exist concerning patients with certain underlying medical conditions who receive allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT)., Objective: To survey allergists' experience with SCIT in patients with medical conditions considered to impose an elevated risk for untoward outcomes., Methods: A Web-based survey was conducted among members of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology to query about their experience with SCIT in patients with certain medical conditions., Results: There were 1085 replies (21% response), of whom, 86% were U.S. based, 51% were suburban, 31% were academic, 42% were medium-sized practices, and 54% had >15 years' experience. In responders' opinion, SCIT was "contraindicated" in patients with the following: acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (48%), cancer (and still receiving active treatment) (33%), severe asthma (32%), and a history of transplantation (30%). Even so, survey responders collectively gave SCIT to >2400 patients for each of these conditions: severe asthma, coronary artery disease, cancer in remission, and autoimmune disorders; and to ≥5400 patients with hypertension and ≥4100 women who became pregnant. The experience of colleagues with these patients rarely resulted in major problems (i.e., activation of underlying disease, systemic reactions to SCIT, or SCIT discontinuation), with the exception of severe asthma (12.5%), initiation of SCIT during pregnancy (5.4%), and AIDS (4.2%). For most other conditions, it was ≤1.5% (e.g., continue during pregnancy, cancer in remission, history of transplantation, positive human immunodeficiency virus and no AIDS)., Conclusion: According to the experience of a large group of practicing allergists, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology members, few medical conditions seemed to pose an elevated risk for untoward outcomes from SCIT. Because these are survey results, prospective research might yield even more solid data.