Search

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps affects approximately 2-4% of the general population, and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with adverse effects. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in adults with recurrent, refractory severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps., Methods: SYNAPSE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 93 centres, mainly hospitals, in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent, refractory, severe, bilateral nasal polyp symptoms (nasal obstruction symptom visual analogue scale [VAS] score of >5), were eligible for repeat nasal surgery (overall symptoms VAS score >7 and endoscopic nasal polyps score of ≥5, with a minimum score of 2 in each nasal cavity) despite standard of care treatment, and had to have at least one nasal surgery in the past 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using permuted block design, to receive either 100 mg mepolizumab subcutaneously or placebo once every 4 weeks, in addition to standard of care (mometasone furoate intranasal spray for at least 8 weeks before screening and during the study, saline nasal irrigations, systemic corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both), as required, for 52 weeks. Site staff, the central study team, and patients were masked to study treatment and absolute blood eosinophil counts. The coprimary endpoints were change from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyp score at week 52 and in mean nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49-52, assessed in the intention-to-treat population (ITT). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03085797., Findings: From May 25, 2017, to Dec 12, 2018, 854 patients were screened for eligibility. 414 patients were randomly assigned with 407 included in the ITT population; 206 received mepolizumab and 201 received placebo. Total endoscopic nasal polyp score significantly improved at week 52 from baseline with mepolizumab versus placebo (adjusted difference in medians -0·73, 95% CI -1·11 to -0·34; p<0·0001) and nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49-52 also significantly improved (-3·14, -4·09 to -2·18; p<0·0001). Adverse events considered related to study treatment were reported in 30 (15%) of 206 patients receiving mepolizumab and 19 (9%) of 201 receiving placebo. On-treatment serious adverse events occurred in 12 (6%) patients receiving mepolizumab and 13 (6%) receiving placebo; none were considered related to treatment in those receiving mepolizumab. One death was reported in the placebo group (myocardial infarction; death occurred 99 days after the last dose) and was considered unrelated to the treatment., Interpretation: Mepolizumab treatment improved nasal polyp size and nasal obstruction compared with placebo, with no new safety indications, in patients with recurrent, refractory severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. These findings suggest that mepolizumab provides an effective add-on treatment option to standard of care in this population., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JKH has received consultancy fees from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Genentech, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Gossamer Bio. CB has participated in advisory boards and received speaker fees from Sanofi, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK-Abelló, and Meda Pharmaceuticals. WF has received clinical trial funding from Sanofi, Mylan, ALK-Abelló, Allergy Therapeutics, Novartis, and Chordate; and personal fees from Sanofi. MD has received clinical trial funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Probionase Therapies, and Sanofi; is an advisory board member for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; and has equity in Probionase Therapies. MW has received advisory board fees or speaker fees from ALK-Abelló, Allergopharma, AstraZeneca, Bencard Allergie, Genzyme, HAL Allergie, InfectoPharm, LETIPharma, Meda Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sanofi, Stallergenes Greer, and Teva. SEL has participated in advisory boards and received clinical trial funding from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Genentech, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. SGS, NM, BM, SWY, ARS, and RC are employees of GlaxoSmithKline and own company stocks and shares. CH has received advisory board fees from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Olympus, and Smith and Nephew., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The MENSA trial assessed the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. This report describes the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in Japanese patients from MENSA., Methods: A post hoc analysis of the Japanese subgroup from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, Phase III MENSA trial (NCT01691521). Patients ≥12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (IV), 100 mg subcutaneously (SC), or placebo, every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. The primary endpoint was the annualized rate of exacerbations. Secondary and other endpoints included annualized rate of exacerbations requiring emergency department (ED) visit/hospitalization, morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and eosinophil counts. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored., Results: In the Japanese subgroup (N = 50), the rate of clinically significant exacerbations was reduced by 90% (rate ratio [RR]: 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.57; P = 0.010) with mepolizumab IV and 62% (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.12-1.18; P = 0.094) with mepolizumab SC, versus placebo. No exacerbations requiring ED visit/hospitalization were reported with mepolizumab IV; exacerbations were reduced by 73% (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.06-1.29; P = 0.102) with mepolizumab SC versus placebo. Compared with placebo, mepolizumab IV and SC numerically increased morning PEF from baseline by 40 L/min and 13 L/min, improved quality of life by greater than the minimal clinically important difference (SGRQ: 9.5 [P = 0.083] and 7.9 [P = 0.171] points) and reduced eosinophil counts. AE incidence was similar between treatments. Results were broadly consistent with the overall population., Conclusions: Mepolizumab was efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, producing similar responses to the overall MENSA population., (Copyright © 2016 Japanese Society of Allergology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Findings from previous studies showed that mepolizumab significantly reduces the rate of exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. To assess the relationship between baseline blood eosinophil counts and efficacy of mepolizumab we did a secondary analysis of data from two studies, stratifying patients by different baseline blood eosinophil thresholds., Methods: We did a post-hoc analysis of data, which was completed on Sept 25, 2015, from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 32 weeks duration (NCT01000506 [DREAM] and NCT01691521 [MENSA]) done between 2009 and 2014. In these studies, mepolizumab (, Dream: 75 mg, 250 mg, or 750 mg intravenously; MENSA: 75 mg intravenously or 100 mg subcutaneously) versus placebo was given at 4-week intervals in addition to standard care (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus ≥1 additional controller with or without daily oral corticosteroids) to patients aged 12 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of asthma, a history of at least two exacerbations in the previous year that required systemic corticosteroid treatment, and evidence of eosinophilic airway inflammation. The primary endpoint in both studies was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations (defined as worsening of asthma that required the use of systemic corticosteroids, or admission to hospital, or an emergency-room visit, or a combination of these occurrences). In our analysis, the primary outcome was the annualised rate of exacerbations in patients stratified by baseline eosinophil counts (≥150 cells per μL, ≥300 cells per μL, ≥400 cells per μL, and ≥500 cells per μL) and baseline blood eosinophil ranges (<150 cells per μL, ≥150 cells per μL to <300 cells per μL, ≥300 cells per μL to <500 cells per μL, and ≥500 cells per μL). We based our analysis on the intention-to-treat populations of the two original studies, and all mepolizumab doses were combined for analysis., Findings: Of 1192 patients, 846 received mepolizumab and 346 received placebo. The overall rate of mean exacerbations per person per year was reduced from 1·91 with placebo to 1·01 with mepolizumab (47% reduction; rate ratio [RR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·62; p<0·0001). The exacerbation rate reduction with mepolizumab versus placebo increased progressively from 52%; 0·48, 0·39-0·58) in patients with a baseline blood eosinophil count of at least 150 cells per μL to 70%; 0·30, 0·23-0·40]) in patients with a baseline count of at least 500 cells per μL. At a baseline count less than 150 cells per μL, predicted efficacy of mepolizumab was reduced., Interpretation: Our analysis has shown a close relationship between baseline blood eosinophil count and clinical efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of exacerbations. We noted clinically relevant reductions in exacerbation frequency in patients with a count of 150 cells per μL or more at baseline. The use of this baseline biomarker will help to select patients who are likely to achieve important asthma outcomes with mepolizumab., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eltrombopag is an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist for the treatment of thrombocytopenia. We aimed to compare the response to once daily eltrombopag versus placebo in patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia during a 6-month period., Methods: We undertook a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adults with previously treated immune thrombocytopenia of more than 6 months' duration who had baseline platelet counts lower than 30,000 per μL. Patients were randomly allocated (in a 2:1 ratio) treatment with local standard of care plus 50 mg eltrombopag or matching placebo once daily for 6 months. Randomisation was done centrally with a computer-generated randomisation schedule and was stratified by baseline platelet count (≤ 15,000 per μL), use of treatment for immune thrombocytopenia, and splenectomy status. Patients, investigators, and those assessing data were masked to allocation. Dose modifications were made on the basis of platelet response. Patients were assessed for response to treatment (defined as a platelet count of 50,000-400,000 per μL) weekly during the first 6 weeks and at least once every 4 weeks thereafter; the primary endpoint was the odds of response to eltrombopag versus placebo. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00370331., Findings: Between Nov 22, 2006, and July 31, 2007, 197 patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (135 eltrombopag, 62 placebo). 106 (79%) patients in the eltrombopag group responded to treatment at least once during the study, compared with 17 (28%) patients in the placebo group. The odds of responding were greater in patients in the eltrombopag group compared with those in the placebo group throughout the 6-month treatment period (odds ratio 8·2, 99% CI 3·59-18·73; p<0·0001). 37 (59%) patients receiving eltrombopag reduced concomitant treatment versus ten (32%) patients receiving placebo (p=0·016). 24 (18%) patients receiving eltrombopag needed rescue treatment compared with 25 (40%) patients receiving placebo (p=0·001). Three (2%) patients receiving eltrombopag had thromboembolic events compared with none in patients on placebo. Nine (7%) eltrombopag-treated patients and two (3%) in the placebo group had mild increases in alanine aminotransferase concentration, and five (4%) eltrombopag-treated patients (vs none allocated to placebo) had increases in total bilirubin. Four (7%) patients taking placebo had serious bleeding events, compared with one (<1%) patient treated with eltrombopag., Interpretation: Eltrombopag is effective for management of chronic immune thrombocytopenia, and could be particularly beneficial for patients who have not responded to splenectomy or previous treatment. These benefits should be balanced with the potential risks associated with eltrombopag treatment., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eltrombopag is an oral, non-peptide, thrombopoietin-receptor agonist that stimulates thrombopoiesis, leading to increased platelet production. This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of once daily eltrombopag 50 mg, and explored the efficacy of a dose increase to 75 mg., Methods: In this phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults from 63 sites in 23 countries with chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), platelet counts less than 30 000 per muL of blood, and one or more previous ITP treatment received standard care plus once-daily eltrombopag 50 mg (n=76) or placebo (n=38) for up to 6 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio of eltrombopag:placebo by a validated randomisation system. After 3 weeks, patients with platelet counts less than 50 000 per microL could increase study drug to 75 mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving platelet counts 50 000 per microL or more at day 43. All participants who received at least one dose of their allocated treatment were included in the analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00102739., Findings: 73 patients in the eltrombopag group and 37 in the placebo group were included in the efficacy population and were evaluable for day-43 analyses. 43 (59%) eltrombopag patients and six (16%) placebo patients responded (ie, achieved platelet counts >/=50 000 per microL; odds ratio [OR] 9.61 [95% CI 3.31-27.86]; p<0.0001). Response to eltrombopag compared with placebo was not affected by predefined study stratification variables (baseline platelet counts, concomitant ITP drugs, and splenectomy status) or by the number of previous ITP treatments. Of the 34 patients in the efficacy analysis who increased their dose of eltrombopag, ten (29%) responded. Platelet counts generally returned to baseline values within 2 weeks after the end of treatment. Patients receiving eltrombopag had less bleeding at any time during the study than did those receiving placebo (OR 0.49 [95% CI 0.26-0.89]; p=0.021). The frequency of grade 3-4 adverse events during treatment (eltrombopag, two [3%]; placebo, one [3%]) and adverse events leading to study discontinuation (eltrombopag, three [4%]; placebo, two [5%]), were similar in both groups., Interpretation: Eltrombopag is an effective treatment for managment of thrombocytopenia in chronic ITP.