Search

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a potentially life-threatening condition. With episodic, unpredictable swelling, HAE negatively affect the quality of life for those affected individuals. To reduce the morbidity and mortality of HAE are the primary goal for the disease management. In addition to have access to therapeutic drugs for their acute HAE attacks, many patients require long term prophylaxis (LTP) to reduce their attack frequency and severity. Preventing HAE attack by regular administration of medicine has become an important part of HAE disease management. Over the past few years, growing number of therapeutic options for the HAE LTP have made it possible for physicians to choose the most appropriate and effective treatment for individual patients. C1 INH concentrate and plasma kallikrein inhibitors (IV or SC) have largely replaced the oder modality of treatment consisting different androgen derivatives or antifibrinolytics. Additional options, such as oral kallikrein inhibitor, antisense RNA/plasma kallikrein, anti-Factor 12a, bradykinin receptor blocker or future gene therapy are under clinical investigation. The significant cost and the uncertainty of its long term safety may be the primary limiting factors for its clinical application. The limited data for young children and pregnant women pose additional challenge for physicians to assess the risk and benefit when considering LTP treatment.

Background We conducted our first patient survey at the 2013 hereditary angioedema (HAE) patient summit and learned that, despite several novel therapies, the burden of disease was high. Objective To determine, from the patient's perspective, if any improvements in the current state of HAE care occurred over a two-year period between HAE patient summits. Methods A patient survey was conducted at the 2015 Hereditary Angioedema Association conference by using paper surveys that aimed at understanding the current state of HAE care. Questions included patient characteristics, burden of disease, and satisfaction with care and treatment options. Comparisons between patients with HAE with C1-inhibitor (HAE-C1INH) and patients with HAE with normal C1-inhibitor (HAE-nlC1INH), as well as between patients with HAE in 2013 and 2015, were performed by using χ2 tests. Results There were 232 surveys distributed, and 143 surveys were identified as complete for inclusion and analysis from patients with self-reported HAE. Most patients had type I or type II HAE (67.5% [n = 106]), with a smaller number of patients with HAE-nlC1INH (23.6% [n = 37]). In 2015, almost half of the patients with HAE-C1INH (47.1%) and 56.7% of the patients with HAE-nlC1INH experienced a delay of ≥10 years between initial symptoms and diagnosis. Among the patients with HAE-C1INH, 25% reported one or more attacks per week and another 48% reported experiencing one or more attacks per month (fewer than one attack per week). The patients with HAE-nlC1INH reported attacks more frequently than did the patients with HAE-C1INH (p = 0.002), with 59.5% who reported attacks at least once a week. Emergency care was reported one or more times per month in 5% of the patients with HAE-C1INH and in 24.3% of the patients with HAE-nlC1INH. Conclusion Similar to 2013, although significant progress has been made, there is still a high burden of disease that faces patients with HAE.

Introduction For prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks, replacement therapy with human C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) treatment is approved and available as intravenous [C1-INH(IV)] (Cinryze®) and subcutaneous [C1-INH(SC)] HAEGARDA® preparations. In the absence of a head-to-head comparative study of the two treatment modalities, an indirect comparison of data from 2 independent but similar clinical trials was undertaken. Methods Two similar randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies were identified which evaluated either C1-INH(SC) (COMPACT; NCT01912456; 16 weeks) or C1-INH(IV) (CHANGE; NCT01005888; 14 weeks) vs. placebo (on-demand treatment only) for routine prevention of HAE attacks. Individual patient data from each trial were used to conduct an indirect comparison of treatment effects. Attack reductions (absolute and percent of mean/median number of monthly HAE attacks reduction over placebo) were compared between the two C1-INH formulations at approved/recommended doses: C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg twice weekly (n = 45) and 1000 U of C1-INH(IV) twice weekly (n = 22). Point estimates were adjusted using mixed and quantile regression models that controlled for study design. Results The absolute mean monthly numbers of HAE attack reductions were 3.6 (95% CI 2.9, 4.2) for C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg vs. placebo and 2.3 (1.4, 3.3) for C1-INH(IV) vs. placebo; between-product difference, 1.3 (0.1, 2.4; P = 0.034). The mean percent reduction in monthly attack rate was significantly greater with C1-INH(SC) as compared with C1-INH(IV) (84% vs. 51%; P

Background Hereditary angioedema (HAE) due to C1 inhibitor deficiency manifests as recurrent swelling attacks that can be disabling and sometimes fatal. Long‐term prophylaxis with twice‐weekly intravenous injections of plasma‐derived C1‐inhibitor (pdC1‐INH) has been established as an effective treatment. Subcutaneous (SC) administration of pdC1‐INH has not been studied in patients with HAE. Methods This open‐label, dose‐ranging, crossover study (COMPACT Phase II) was conducted in 18 patients with type I or II HAE who received two of twice‐weekly 1500, 3000, or 6000 IU SC doses of highly concentrated volume‐reduced CSL830 for 4 weeks each. The mean trough plasma levels of C1‐INH functional activity, C1‐INH and C4 antigen levels during Week 4, and overall safety and tolerability were evaluated. The primary outcome was model‐derived steady‐state trough C1‐INH functional activity. Results After SC CSL830 administration, a dose‐dependent increase in trough functional C1‐INH activity was observed. C1‐INH and C4 levels both increased. The two highest dose groups (3000 and 6000 IU) achieved constant C1‐INH activity levels above 40% values, a threshold that was assumed to provide clinical protection against angioedema attacks. Compared with intravenous injection, pdC1‐INH SC injection with CSL830 showed a lower peak‐to‐trough ratio and more consistent exposures. All doses were well tolerated. Mild‐to‐moderate local site reactions were noted with pain and swelling being the most common adverse event. Conclusions Subcutaneous volume‐reduced CSL830 was well tolerated and led to a dose‐dependent increase in physiologically relevant functional C1‐INH plasma levels. A clinical outcome study of SC CSL830 in patients with HAE warrants further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Effective inhibition of plasma kallikrein may have significant benefits for patients with hereditary angioedema due to deficiency of C1 inhibitor (C1-INH-HAE) by reducing the frequency of angioedema attacks. Avoralstat is a small molecule inhibitor of plasma kallikrein. This study (OPuS-2) evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic avoralstat 300 or 500 mg compared with placebo. METHODS: OPuS-2 was a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Subjects were administered avoralstat 300 mg, avoralstat 500 mg, or placebo orally 3 times per day for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the angioedema attack rate based on adjudicator-confirmed attacks. RESULTS: A total of 110 subjects were randomized and dosed. The least squares (LS) mean attack rates per week were 0.589, 0.675, and 0.593 for subjects receiving avoralstat 500 mg, avoralstat 300 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall, 1 subject in each of the avoralstat groups and no subjects in the placebo group were attack-free during the 84-day treatment period. The LS mean duration of all confirmed attacks was 25.4, 29.4, and 31.4 hours for the avoralstat 500 mg, avoralstat 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Using the Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE-QoL), improved QoL was observed for the avoralstat 500 mg group compared with placebo. Avoralstat was generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not demonstrate efficacy of avoralstat in preventing angioedema attacks in C1-INH-HAE, it provided evidence of shortened angioedema episodes and improved QoL in the avoralstat 500 mg treatment group compared with placebo. ispartof: ALLERGY vol:73 issue:9 pages:1871-1880 ispartof: location:Denmark status: published

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease characterized by episodic subcutaneous or submucosal swelling. The primary cause for the most common form of HAE is a deficiency in functional C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH). The swelling caused by HAE can be painful, disfiguring, and life-threatening. It reduces daily function and compromises the quality of life of affected individuals and their caregivers. Among different treatment strategies, replacement with C1-INH concentrates is employed for on-demand treatment of acute attacks and long-term prophylaxis. Three human plasma-derived C1-INH preparations are approved for HAE treatment in the US, the European Union, or both regions: Cinryze(®), Berinert(®), and Cetor(®); however, only Cinryze is approved for long-term prophylaxis. Postmarketing studies have shown that home therapy (self-administered or administered by a caregiver) is a convenient and safe option preferred by many HAE patients. In this review, we summarize the role of self-administered plasma-derived C1-INH concentrate therapy with Cinryze at home in the prophylaxis of HAE.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by recurrent angioedema. Icatibant, a subcutaneous bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonist, is an effective on-demand therapy. Data outside the United States suggest that self-administration is tolerated and patient-preferred compared with administration by health care professionals at medical facilities (HCP-administration).A prospective, multicenter study was conducted in the United States to compare icatibant self-administration and HCP-administration.Subjects 18 years or older with type I or II HAE were recruited. The first 2 HAE attacks after enrollment were treated at medical facilities. Subjects were instructed by a health care professional on self-administration during icatibant treatment for the second HAE attack. Icatibant was self-administered for all subsequent attacks. For each treated HAE attack, efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were recorded.Nineteen patients with HAE received icatibant for 79 distinct HAE attacks. Mean attack duration was significantly shorter with self-administration (n = 50; 547 ± 510 minutes) than with HCP-administration (n = 29; 968 ± 717 minutes; P = .006). Mean time to treatment was significantly shorter with self-administration (143 ± 226 minutes) than with HCP-administration (361 ± 503 minutes; P.0001). Shorter times to treatment were associated with shorter time from treatment to symptom resolution (r = 0.35; P = .02). Improvements in visual analog scale score and patient symptom score from pretreatment to 4 hours postinjection were comparable between self-administration and HCP-administration. There were no serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events with self-administration or HCP-administration.Icatibant self-administration shortened attack duration and time to treatment, with no difference in safety or local tolerability compared with HCP-administration. These findings support icatibant as an effective on-demand option for home-based treatment.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is characterized by potentially lifethreatening recurrent episodes of oedema. The open-label extension (OLE) phase of the For Angioedema Subcutaneous Treatment (FAST)-1 trial (NCT00097695) evaluated the efficacy and safety of repeated icatibant exposure in adults with multiple HAE attacks. Following completion of the randomized, controlled phase, patients could receive open-label icatibant (30 mg subcutaneously) for subsequent attacks. The primary end-point was time to onset of primary symptom relief, as assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). Descriptive statistics were reported for cutaneous/abdominal attacks 1–10 treated in the OLE phase and individual laryngeal attacks. Post-hoc analyses were conducted in patients with ≥ 5 attacks across the controlled and OLE phases. Safety was evaluated throughout. During the OLE phase, 72 patients received icatibant for 340 attacks. For cutaneous/abdominal attacks 1–10, the median time to onset of primary symptom relief was 1·0–2·0 h. For laryngeal attacks 1–12, patient-assessed median time to initial symptom improvement was 0·3–1·2 h. Post-hoc analyses showed the time to onset of symptom relief based on composite VAS was consistent across repeated treatments with icatibant. One injection of icatibant was sufficient to treat 88·2% of attacks; rescue medication was required in 5·3% of attacks. No icatibantrelated serious adverse events were reported. Icatibant provided consistent efficacy and was well tolerated for repeated treatment of HAE attacks. Fil: Malbrán, Alejandro. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires. Servicio de Alergia e Inmunología Clínica; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Riedl, M.. University of California at Los Angeles; Estados Unidos Fil: Ritchie, B.. University of Alberta; Canadá Fil: Smith, W. B.. Royal Adelaide Hospital. Clinical Immunology and Allergy; Australia Fil: Yang, W.. Allergy and Asthma Research Centre; Canadá Fil: Banerji, A.. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos Fil: Hébert, J.. Centre de Recherche Appliquée en Allergie de Québec; Canadá Fil: Gleich, G. J.. University of Utah; Estados Unidos Fil: Hurewitz, D.. Allergy Clinic of Tulsa; Estados Unidos Fil: Jacobson, K. W.. Allergy and Asthma Research Group; Estados Unidos Fil: Bernstein, J. A.. University of Cincinnati; Estados Unidos Fil: Khan, D. A.. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center; Estados Unidos Fil: Kirkpatrick, C. H.. University of Colorado. Health Science Center; Estados Unidos Fil: Resnick, D.. Columbia University; Estados Unidos Fil: Li, H.. Shire; Estados Unidos Fil: Fernández Romero, D. S.. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; Argentina Fil: Lum, W.. AARA Research Centre; Estados Unidos

Background: The For Angioedema Subcutaneous Treatment (FAST)-2, a phase III, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled study (ClinicalTri als.gov identifier: NCT00500656), established the efficacy and safety of single injections of icatibant, a bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist, in the treatment of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks. Here, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of repeated treatment with icatibant in adult patients experiencing HAE attacks during the FAST-2 open-label extension (OLE) phase. Methods: Patients completing the controlled phase were eligible to participate in the OLE phase and receive open-label icatibant (30 mg subcutaneously) for the treatment of cutaneous, abdominal, and/or laryngeal HAE attack(s) severe enough to warrant treatment. Time to onset of symptom relief was calculated for each attack. Descriptive analyses (median, 95% CIs) were performed for all attacks; post hoc analyses were conducted in patients with at least five icatibanttreated attacks throughout the FAST-2 OLE phase. Safety was also monitored. Results: Fifty-four patients received icatibant for 374 attacks (176 cutaneous, 168 abdominal, and 30 laryngeal). For cutaneous and/or abdominal attacks (attacks 2–5), the median times to onset of symptom relief ranged between 2.0 and 2.5 h. For all laryngeal attacks, the median times to regression (start of improvement) of symptoms ranged between 0.3 and 4.0 h. Post hoc analyses showed that the overall median time to onset of symptom relief was 2.0 h. Overall, 89.8% of attacks resolved with a single icatibant injection. No drug-related serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: These findings have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of repeated icatibant treatment for HAE attacks.

Asthma affects more than 15 million adults in the United States. The incidence of asthma has risen in the past few decades. It is a significant health concern and a tremendous economic burden in modern societies. In this chapter we discuss the etiologies and pathogenesis of asthma. We also describe the current concepts and guidelines of asthma intervention and treatment.

T U E S D A Y 827 Hypersensitivity Reactions to Ecallantide: an Update of the Clinical Trial Experience and Post-Market Surveillance for Treatment of Attacks of Hereditary Angioedema T. J. Craig, M. Riedl, H. H. Li, J. A. Bernstein, A. J. MacGinnitie, D. F. Soteres, W. R. Lumry, W. E. Pullman; Penn State University, Hershey, PA, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, Institute for Asthma & Allergy, Wheaton, MD, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, Children’s Hospital Boston, Boston, MA, Asthma and Allergy Associates, PC, Colorado Springs, CO, AARA Research Center, Dallas, TX, Dyax Corp., Cambridge, MA. RATIONALE: Ecallantide is a plasma kallikrein inhibitor indicated for treatment of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks. We present an update of potential hypersensitivity cases reported in ecallantide clinical trials and following commercial use of ecallantide. METHODS: Data from 4 studies utilizing a 30 mg subcutaneous dose of ecallantide (EDEMA2, EDEMA3, EDEMA4, and DX-88/19) and postmarketing surveillance were evaluated for possible hypersensitivity reactions. Reported events suggestive of potential hypersensitivity were assessed using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading System (grade 1: single organ system involved; grade 2: >1 organ system/mild respiratory distress/ gastrointestinal symptoms; grade 3: moderate respiratory distress; grade 4: respiratory failure/hypotension; grade 5: death). Reactions were also classified as ‘‘likely’’ or ‘‘unlikely’’ hypersensitivity based on the temporal sequence of events and presence of confounding factors including patient history, underlying disease, concomitant medications, and outcomes following ecallantide re-exposure. RESULTS: In clinical studies, 230 patients received 1045 doses of 30 mg subcutaneous ecallantide. Fourteen patients experienced potential hypersensitivity. Eight were classified as likely (seven WAO grade 2; one grade 1) and 6 as unlikely (three grade 2; three grade 1). Symptoms included pruritus, urticaria, erythema, flushing, dyspnea, chest discomfort, dizziness, nausea, laryngeal edema, and blood pressure changes. All events resolved without sequelae. Frequency of post-marketing cases appear similar, with 9 potential cases reported among ;256 patients receiving ;1135 doses through July 31, 2011. Symptoms and outcomes were similar to those in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Potential hypersensitivity reactions are a risk of ecallantide treatment, but patient monitoring and appropriate treatment can mitigate this risk.