Search

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of omalizumab among adolescents with moderate-severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients 12 to 17 years of age were pooled from 5 placebo-controlled registration trials of omalizumab. Impact on asthma control was assessed by need for rescue bursts of oral corticosteroids, lung function, symptom scores, and unscheduled office visits. RESULTS: In adolescents (n = 146), addition of omalizumab decreased mean number of rescue bursts (0.3 vs 0.9) versus placebo; relative risk 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.99; P = .047). At study conclusion, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased 268 mL (13.8%) in omalizumab-treated subjects versus 98 mL (5.5%) for placebo (least squares mean treatment difference 146 mL [95% CI, 19.4-272.6; P = .024]). Omalizumab significantly improved asthma symptom scores and reduced unscheduled office visits. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab added to baseline therapy improves measures of asthma control in adolescents with persistent moderate-severe allergic asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Allergic asthma is an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated disease characterized by frequent exacerbations following exposure to relevant allergens that leads to the development of chronic airway inflammation. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, reduces asthma exacerbation and hospitalization rates in patients with IgE-mediated allergic asthma. We investigated the effect of omalizumab on asthma outcomes in a retrospective pooled analysis of data from phase III clinical trials in patients (>or= 12 years) with moderate-to-severe persistent IgE-mediated allergic asthma. METHODS: Systemic corticosteroid bursts and physician and patient overall assessments of asthma control were assessed in patients who received add-on omalizumab or current asthma therapy (control). The association of physician and patient overall assessments with the number of steroid bursts were also evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis encompassed 4308 patients with moderate-to-severe persistent IgE-mediated allergic asthma (93% met GINA 2002 criteria for severe persistent asthma) from seven clinical trials. The number of systemic corticosteroid bursts was significantly lower in omalizumab-treated patients than in the control group (relative risk [95% CI]: 0.57 [0.48-0.66], p < 0.001). In addition, 58.5% of omalizumab recipients had complete/marked improvement in asthma control according to the physician's overall assessment (responders) vs. 36.9% in the control group (p < 0.001). Similarly, 64.2% of omalizumab patients vs. 43.9% of control patients had complete/marked improvement according to the patient's overall assessment (p < 0.001). There were statistically significant associations between systemic corticosteroid bursts and physician (Goodman-Kruskal gamma [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.26-0.38]) and patient (gamma [95% CI]: 0.29 [0.23-0.36]) overall assessments. This pooled analysis has limitations as it was not pre-specified. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab therapy reduced the need for systemic corticosteroid bursts and improved effectiveness of asthma treatment as judged by both physicians and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of starting doses of rofecoxib and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: A 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: One hundred thirteen outpatient sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,042 male and female patients aged 40 and older with OA of the knee (>6 months). INTERVENTIONS: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg once a day (n=424), nabumetone 1,000 mg once a day (n=410), or placebo (n=208) for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks, which was also specifically evaluated over the first 6 days. The main safety measure was adverse events during the 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with a good or excellent response to therapy as assessed using PGART at Week 6 was significantly higher with rofecoxib (55.4%) than nabumetone (47.5%; P=.018) or placebo (26.7%; P<.001 vs rofecoxib or nabumetone). Median time to first report of a good or excellent PGART response was significantly shorter in patients treated with rofecoxib (2 days) than with nabumetone (4 days, P=.002) and placebo (>5 days, P<.001) (nabumetone vs placebo; P=.007). The safety profiles of rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally similar, including gastrointestinal, hypertensive, and renal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg daily demonstrated better efficacy over 6 weeks of treatment and quicker onset of OA efficacy over the first 6 days than nabumetone 1,000 mg daily. Both therapies were generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity mediated by dual cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 inhibition of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can cause serious alterations of mucosal integrity or, more commonly, intolerable GI symptoms that may necessitate discontinuation of therapy. Unlike NSAIDs, rofecoxib targets only the COX-2 isoform.Objective: To assess the tolerability of rofecoxib compared with naproxen for treatment of osteoarthritis.Design: Randomized, controlled trial.Setting: 600 office and clinical research sites.Patients: 5557 patients (mean age, 63 years) with a baseline diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, hand, or spine.Intervention: Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, or naproxen, 500 mg twice daily. Use of routine medications, including aspirin, was permitted.Measurements: Discontinuation due to GI adverse events (primary end point) and use of concomitant medication to treat GI symptoms (secondary end point). Efficacy was determined by patient-reported global assessment of disease status and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, as well as discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12.Results: Rates of cumulative discontinuation due to GI adverse events were statistically significantly lower in the rofecoxib group than in the naproxen group (5.9% vs. 8.1%; relative risk, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92]; P = 0.005), as were rates of cumulative use of medication to treat GI symptoms (9.1% vs. 11.2%; relative risk, 0.79 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]; P = 0.014]). Subgroup analysis of patients who used low-dose aspirin (13%) and those who previously discontinued using arthritis medication because of GI symptoms (15%) demonstrated a relative risk similar to the overall sample for discontinuation due to GI adverse events (relative risk, 0.56 [CI, 0.31 to 1.01] and 0.53 [CI, 0.34 to 0.84], respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between treatments for efficacy in treating osteoarthritis or for occurrence of other adverse events.Conclusions: In patients with osteoarthritis treated for 12 weeks, rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, was as effective as naproxen, 500 mg twice daily, but had statistically significantly superior GI tolerability and led to less use of concomitant GI medications. Benefits of rofecoxib in subgroup analyses were consistent with findings in the overall sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Osteoarthritis (OA) is often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, or specific inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2).Objective: To assess the relative therapeutic efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in adults with OA.Design and Setting: Randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial, conducted from June 1999 to February 2000, in 29 clinical centers in the United States.Patients: Three hundred eighty-two patients aged at least 40 years who had OA of the knee that was previously treated with NSAIDs or acetaminophen.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d (n = 96); rofecoxib, 25 mg/d (n = 95); celecoxib, 200 mg/d (n = 97); or acetaminophen, 4000 mg/d (n = 94) for 6 weeks.Main Outcome Measures: Assessments over days 1 to 6 and over 6 weeks included pain on walking, night pain, pain at rest, and morning stiffness as measured on a Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]) and global response to therapy compared among 4 treatment groups.Results: 79% of patients completed the study. More patients treated with acetaminophen discontinued early due to lack of efficacy than patients treated with COX-2 inhibitors (31% vs 18%-19%). Efficacy assessed in the first 6 days of therapy showed greatest response to rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, followed by rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d, celecoxib, and acetaminophen, respectively, in terms of relief of pain on walking (-32.2, - 29.0, - 26.4, and -20.6 mm change on the VAS; PConclusion: Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, provided efficacy advantages over acetaminophen, 4000 mg/d, celecoxib, 200 mg/d, and rofecoxib, 12.5 mg, for symptomatic knee OA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute pain, with similar analgesic efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Diclofenac sodium is the most commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug worldwide; it is effective for the treatment of pain as well as the signs and symptoms associated with the painful conditions of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg, and placebo over 8-hour and 24-hour periods in patients with moderate to severe pain after oral surgery. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars were randomized to receive a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg given every 8 hours), or placebo. Patients rated pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments at prespecified times throughout the 24-hour period after initial dosing. Overall analgesic efficacy was determined by total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) and 24 hours (TOPAR24) and patient global assessments at 8 and 24 hours. Onset of analgesic effect was determined by using the 2-stopwatch method for confirmed perceptible pain relief. Peak analgesic effect was the maximum pain relief attained during the first 8 hours. The duration of analgesic effect was determined by median time to rescue analgesia use. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were randomized to treatment: 121 received rofecoxib, 121 received diclofenac sodium, and 63 received placebo. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Overall, 61.3% experienced moderate pain and 38.7% experienced severe pain; 53.1% were female; and the mean age was 23.4 years. The overall analgesic efficacy, as assessed by TOPAR8, of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly greater than a single dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (20.5 vs 8.2) and placebo (20.5 vs 5.9). Patient global assessment at 8 hours was also significantly better for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. TOPAR24 was significantly greater for a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (64.1 vs 25.1) and placebo (64.1 vs 19.2). At 24 hours, the patient global assessment for rofecoxib was significantly better than that achieved with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. The onset of analgesic effect was significantly more rapid for rofecoxib than for enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo (median times: 31 minutes, >4 hours, and >4 hours, respectively). The peak analgesic effect was significantly greater for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (3.2 vs 1.5) and placebo (3.2 vs 1.1). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer for rofecoxib than enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (median times: >24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes) and placebo (>24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes). Enteric-coated diclofenac sodium was numerically greater than placebo for the key end points measuring overall efficacy (total pain relief and patient global assessment), but diclofenac sodium did not provide as much analgesic effect as expected for a drug effective for pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis and did not differ significantly from placebo. Overall, both rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium were generally well tolerated, although the rofecoxib group had a significantly lower incidence of clinical and drug-related adverse events than the enteric-coated diclofenac sodium group. CONCLUSIONS: A single 50-mg dose of rofecoxib provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 8 hours, more rapid onset of analgesia, greater maximum analgesic effect, and longer duration of effect than a single 50-mg dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with oral surgery. Compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg every 8 hours), a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 24 hours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Pregnant women with COVID-19 are at elevated risk for severe outcomes, but clinical data on management of these patients are limited. Monoclonal antibodies, such as casirivimab plus imdevimab (CAS+IMD), have proven effective in treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, prompting further evaluation in pregnant women., Methods: A phase 3 portion of an adaptive, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the safety, clinical outcomes, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of CAS+IMD (1200 mg or 2400 mg) in the treatment of pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 (NCT04425629). Participants were enrolled between December 2020 and November 2021, prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants against which CAS+IMD is not active. Safety was evaluated in randomised participants who received study drug (n=80); clinical outcomes were evaluated in all randomised participants (n=82). Only two pregnant participants received placebo, limiting conclusions regarding treatment effect. Infants born to pregnant participants were followed for developmental outcomes ≤1 year of age., Results: In pregnant participants, CAS+IMD was well tolerated, with no grade ≥2 hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions reported. There were no participant deaths, and only one COVID-19-related medically attended visit. Although two pregnancies (3%) reported issues in the fetus/neonate, they were confounded by maternal history or considered to be due to an alternate aetiology. No adverse developmental outcomes in infants ≤1 year of age were considered related to in utero exposure to the study drug. CAS+IMD 1200 mg and 2400 mg rapidly and similarly reduced viral loads, with a dose-proportional increase in concentrations of CAS+IMD in serum. Pharmacokinetics were consistent with that reported in the general population. Immunogenicity incidence was low., Conclusion: CAS+IMD treatment of pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 showed similar safety, clinical outcomes and pharmacokinetic profiles to that observed in non-pregnant adults. There was no evidence of an impact on developmental outcomes in infants ≤1 year of age., Trial Registration Number: NCT04425629., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TDN, MT, SG, SA, JC, AW, JX, JDD, SCI, CP, DA, DS, BK, ATD, RB, GPG, EC, NB and PD are employees and stockholders at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ATH is a Regeneron employee/stockholder and former Pfizer employee and current stockholder. KCT, JDH and GAH are Regeneron employees and stockholders, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron. JAB is a site PI for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. multicentred clinical trials, Enanta multicentred clinical trials and Pfizer multicentred clinical trials; a sub-investigator for Novavax multicentred clinical trials; and an advisory board/panel member for Avalere, Pfizer, Moderna, Sobi and Valneva., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The safety of casirivimab+imdevimab (CAS+IMD) (anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]) in pediatric outpatients with COVID-19 was evaluated in a randomized, phase 1/2/3 trial. Consistent with adults, CAS+IMD was generally well tolerated with low drug-induced immunogenicity rates. The findings support development of next-generation anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs for at-risk pediatric patients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: It is unknown whether clinical benefit of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors is associated with baseline or on-treatment triglyceride concentrations., Objectives: This study sought to examine relations between triglyceride levels and the effect of alirocumab vs placebo on cardiovascular outcomes using prespecified and post hoc analyses of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial., Methods: Patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 18,924) and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins despite optimized statin therapy were randomized to alirocumab 75 to 150 mg or matching placebo every 2 weeks subcutaneously. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were examined in relation to continuous or dichotomous triglyceride concentrations., Results: Median baseline triglyceride concentration was 129 mg/dL. In both treatment groups, a 10-mg/dL higher baseline concentration was associated with an adjusted MACE HR of 1.008 (95% CI: 1.003-1.013; P < 0.005). Baseline triglycerides ≥150 vs <150 mg/dL were associated with a HR of 1.184 (95% CI: 1.080-1.297; P < 0.005). Versus placebo, alirocumab reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol from baseline (average, 54.7%) and reduced MACE (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.93). At month 4, triglyceride levels were reduced from baseline by median 17.7 mg/dL (P < 0.001) and 0.9 mg/dL (P = NS) with alirocumab and placebo, respectively. A 10-mg/dL decline from baseline in triglycerides was associated with lower subsequent risk of MACE with placebo (HR: 0.988; 95% CI: 0.982-0.995; P < 0.005) but not with alirocumab (HR: 0.999; 95% CI: 0.987-1.010; P = 0.82)., Conclusions: Among patients with recent ACS on optimized statin therapy, baseline triglycerides was associated with cardiovascular risk. However, the reduction in triglycerides with alirocumab did not contribute to its clinical benefit. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This analysis was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Sanofi. The trial was designed by an academic steering committee in conjunction with the sponsors. The sponsors were involved in the collection verification, and analysis of the data provided in the manuscript. All authors participated in the interpretation of the data. Dr Zahger has served as national coordinator for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial and the SCORED trial, both funded by Sanofi; and has served as consultant for Bayer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr Schwartz has received research support to the University of Colorado from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Silence Therapeutics, and The Medicines Company; and is a coinventor of pending U.S. patent 62/806,313 (“Methods for Reducing Cardiovascular Risk”) assigned in full to the University of Colorado. Drs Du, Manvelian, Pordy, Fazio, and Geba are all employees of and shareholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Szarek has received salary support from CPC, a nonprofit academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado that receives research grant/consulting funding from Abbott, Agios, Alexion Pharma, Alnylam, Amgen, Angionetics, ARCA Biopharma, Array, AstraZeneca, Atentiv, Audentes, Bayer, Better Therapeutics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiol Therapeutics, CellResearch, Cook Medical, Cook, CSL Behring, Eidos Therapeutics, EP Trading Co, Esperion Therapeutics, Everly Health, Faraday, Fortress Biotech, HDL Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Hummingbird Bioscience, Insmed, Janssen, Kowa Research, Lexicon, Merck, MedPace, Medtronic, Moderna, Novate Medical, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PPD Development, Prairie Education and Research, Prothena Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Regio Biosciences, Sanifit Therapeutics, Sanofi, Smith and Nephew, Stealth BioTherapeutics, University of Colorado, University of Pittsburgh, Worldwide Clinical Trials, Wraser, and Yale Cardiovascular Research Group; has received fees for performing analyses, steering committee fees, and travel support from Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc; has received consulting fees from CiVi, Lexicon, Amarin, and Esperion Therapeutics; has received Data Safety and Monitoring Board membership fees from Resverlogix and Janssen; and is a member of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Editorial Board. Dr Bhatt has served on the advisory board for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; has served on the Board of Directors for Angiowave (with stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (with stock), DRS.LINQ (with stock options), High Enroll (with stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; has served as the Inaugural Chair of the American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; has served as a consultant for Broadview Ventures and Hims; has served on the Data Monitoring Committee for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, the Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, the Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health–funded MINT trial); has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen and Company, the Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and U.S. national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); has served as the Deputy Editor of Clinical Cardiology; has served as the Chair of the NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee and the VA CART Research and Publications Committee; holds a patent for sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither Dr Bhatt nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receives any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); has served as a site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; and conducted unfunded research for FlowCo and Takeda. Dr Bittner has received grant support from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, Bayer, Novartis, and Amgen, all paid direct to her institution; and has received personal fees from Sanofi and Pfizer. Dr Budaj has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Bayer, and AstraZeneca; and has received personal fee from Novartis, Amgen, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Diaz has received research grants from Sanofi, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, the Population Health Research Institute, Duke Clinical Research Institute, the TIMI group, Amgen, Cirius, the Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Center, and Lepetit; and has received personal fees, as a member of the Executive Steering Committee, from Amgen and Cirius. Dr Goodman has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo/American Regent, Eli Lilly and Comapny, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo/American Regent, Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, HLS Therapeutics, JAMP Pharma, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/C, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Sanofi, Servier, Valeo Pharma, the Canadian Heart Research Centre and MD Primer, the Canadian VIGOUR Centre, the Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Centre for Clinical Research, the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the New York University Clinical Coordinating Centre, the PERFUSE Research Institute, and the TIMI Study Group (Brigham Health); and has served as a consultant or on the advisory board (or both) for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, JAMP Pharma, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Sanofi, Servier, Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, and Valeo Pharma. Dr Jukema has received research grants from the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of the Netherlands, and the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme; and has received research support from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck-Schering-Plough, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr Harrington has received research grants (all data safety and monitoring board related) from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb; has served on the advisory board for Gilead (uncompensated) and WebMD; and has served on the board of directors (unpaid) for the American Heart Association and Stanford HealthCare. Dr Moriarty has received research grants to his institution for the participation in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial; has received financial fees for serving as a medical monitor for the trial and associated support for travel related to trial meetings from Sanofi; has received consulting and speaking fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Amgen; has received consulting fees from Esperion, Kaneka, and Stage II innovations; has received speaker fees from Amarin; has received advisor fees from Novartis for serving on their advisory committee; and has received research grants to his institution from Ionis, FH Foundation, GB Life Sciences, Aegerion, Amgen, Kowa, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Scemama is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Dr White has received grant support paid to his institution for serving on a Steering Committee for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial from Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, for the ACCELERATE study from Eli Lilly and Company, for the STRENGTH trial from Omthera Pharmaceuticals, for the CAMELLIA-TIMI study from Eisai, for the HEART-FID study from American Regent, and for the ISCHEMIA Trial and the MINT Trial from the National Institutes of Health; has received grants to his institution and personal fees as Steering Committee member for the dal-GenE study from DalCor Pharma UK Inc, for the AEGIS-II study from CSL Behring, for the SCORED trial and the SOLOIST-WHF trial from Sanofi Australia Pty Ltd, and for the CLEAR Outcomes Study from Esperion Therapeutics Inc; and has served on the advisory board for CSL Behring and Genentech (an affiliate of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, “Roche”; Lytics Post-PCI Advisory Board at European Society of Cardiology). Dr Zeiher has received fees for serving on a steering committee for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial from Sanofi; and has received advisory board and speaker fees from Sanofi, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Vifor. Dr Steg has received grants and nonfinancial support (co-Chair of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial; as such, he received no personal fees, but his institution has received funding for the time he has devoted to trial coordination, and he has received support for travel related to trial meetings) from Sanofi; has received research grants and personal fees from Bayer (Steering Committee MARINER, grant for epidemiological study), Merck (speaker fees, grant for epidemiological studies), Sanofi (co-Chair of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial; co-Chair of the SCORED trial; consulting; speaking), Servier (Chair of the CLARIFY registry; grant for epidemiological research), and Amarin (executive steering committee for the REDUCE-IT trial [Disease Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial]; consulting); has received personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Idorsia, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and AstraZeneca; and has a European application number/patent number, issued on October 26, 2016 (no. 15712241.7), for a method for reducing cardiovascular risk, with all royalties assigned to Sanofi. Dr Kiss has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Deeper insight is needed on how monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) affect vaccine-mediated immune responses when targeting the same protein. We describe the first prospective randomised trial designed to understand mAb-mediated alterations in vaccine-induced immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein epitopes., Methods: This randomised, open-label, parallel-group study assessed the potential interaction of a mAb combination, casirivimab and imdevimab, with a vaccine, Moderna's mRNA-1273, in healthy SARS-CoV-2 immunologically naive, seronegative adults at six centres in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (per prespecified randomisation ratios within enrolment waves) according to a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by age (<65 years and ≥65 years), to various intravenous or subcutaneous doses of casirivimab and imdevimab before, after, or at the same time as mRNA-1273 or to mRNA-1273 only. The doses of casirivimab and imdevimab were chosen to mimic various time intervals between receipt of 1200 mg of the mAb and the first dose of a primary series with mRNA-1273. The primary endpoint was vaccine-induced 50% inhibitory dilution neutralising antibody titres to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, 56 days after the first vaccination. Secondary endpoints included vaccine-induced total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 antigens and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Exploratory endpoints included blood-derived T-cell and B-cell responses. The per-protocol set was used for the analysis of the primary endpoint and included all randomly assigned participants who received both doses of the vaccine and completed the injection or infusion of casirivimab and imdevimab per protocol, had no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past or in the 56 days after the first dose of vaccine, and did not receive any intervention outside of the study that could alter the immune response. Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned participants who had received one or more doses of mRNA-1273 or any study drug, and analysed based on treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04852978, and is complete., Findings: Between April 29, 2021, and Nov 21, 2022, 807 participants were assessed for eligibility and 295 were randomly assigned. 293 participants were included in the safety analysis set and 260 were included in the per-protocol set. All vaccinated participants developed neutralising antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, with median titres above the published protective threshold (100 IU/mL) against the SARS-CoV-2 D614G variant (considered a reference strain at the time the initial COVID-19 vaccines were developed). Titres were decreased up to 4-fold (median titres 280-450 IU/mL for casirivimab and imdevimab vs 1160 IU/mL for vaccine only on day 56) when casirivimab and imdevimab was given 85 days or less before vaccination (150-1200 mg intravenously) or co-administered subcutaneously (600 mg or 1200 mg) with vaccination. Minimal reduction in neutralisation titres was observed in the 48 mg and 12 mg intravenous groups, corresponding to receipt of casirivimab and imdevimab 113 days and 169 days, respectively, before vaccination, and when administering the vaccine 6 days before the mAb. Across all groups, mAbs had a minimal effect on vaccine-induced total antibodies and T-cell responses to the spike protein. Casirivimab and imdevimab plus mRNA-1273 was generally well tolerated; a slight increase in treatment-emergent adverse events was observed in the casirivimab and imdevimab plus vaccine groups versus the vaccine-only group., Interpretation: Casirivimab and imdevimab administration before or at the time of COVID-19 vaccination reduced the elicitation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies, but minimal effect was observed when vaccination occurred before mAb administration. Although the clinical significance of this decrease in neutralisation is unclear, this evidence suggests that further investigation of potential interactions could be warranted before concurrent clinical use of mAbs and vaccines targeting the same viral proteins as their main modes of action for the prevention or treatment of infectious diseases., Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FI and JDH are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and report having patents pending, which have been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. AMGO, BAO, TB, SG, LF, SCI, MT, GPG, and BM are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. JM is an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. EF-N is a former employee and current stockholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and reports patents pending, which have been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. IH is an employee and stockholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and a stockholder of Merck & Co. ATH is an employee and stockholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, is a stockholder of Pfizer, and reports a patent pending, which has been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. AB, CAK, and GDY are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and report having issued patents (US patent numbers 10 787 501, 10 954 289, and 10 975 139) and pending patents, which have been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. CDP is an employee and stockholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and reports a patent pending with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. MJM reports funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, paid to her institution, and grants from the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Moderna, Sanofi Pasteur, and Janssen, paid to her institution. SCDR reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded to his institution, and contracts from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, The Henry M Jackson Foundation, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine (formerly Janssen Pharmaceuticals), Gates Medical Research Institute, Paul G Allen Family Foundation, and Battelle, awarded to his institution. KWC reports funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, paid to her institution, and is an employee and stockholder of Moderna. LDW CAH, AJO, AHP, and GDT report funding and provision of study materials from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, paid to their institution. GAH is an employee and stockholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and reports having a patent pending, which has been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, as well as a pending patent application. MM, JH, LP, and FAF declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024. Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Objective: Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) are predictors of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; therefore, current recommendations for CVD risk assessment and management advocate that patients receive testing for ApoB and Lp(a) in addition to the standard lipid panel. However, US guidelines around ApoB and Lp(a) testing have evolved over time and vary slightly by expert committee. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the number of insured individuals in the USA who received any component of a lipid test, or ApoB and/or Lp(a) testing, during 2019., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to estimate the prevalence of any component of a lipid test, ApoB, and/or Lp(a) in the USA using four different claim data sources (including Medicaid, Medicare, and commercially insured enrollees). Prevalence estimates were age-, sex-, payor-, and region-standardized to the 2019 US Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey. We also described the clinical profile of patients who received lipid testing between 2019 and 2021 (cohort analysis) in Optum claims database. Enrollees were grouped into four non-mutually exclusive cohorts based on their completion of any component of the lipid panel, ApoB, Lp(a), or ApoB and Lp(a)., Results: In the prevalence cohort, over a third (38 %) of insured adults in the USA underwent testing for any component of a lipid panel in 2019. This proportion was higher for individuals aged ≥65 years compared to younger adults (62% vs 31 %). The proportion of ApoB and Lp(a) testing represented only <1 % of testing for any component of a lipid panel. In the cohort analysis, we found that lipid testing increased with age and comorbidities., Conclusion: These data should be considered by guideline-issuing agencies and organizations to develop education campaigns encouraging more frequent use of tests beyond the standard lipid panel., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Robert Sanchez reports administrative support, article publishing charges, and writing assistance were provided by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dana Murdock reports a relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment and equity or stocks. Robert Sanchez reports a relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment and equity or stocks. Keran Moll reports a relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment and equity or stocks. Jing Gu reports a relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment and equity or stocks. Sergio Fazio reports a relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment and equity or stocks. Gregory P Geba reports a relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment and equity or stocks. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with HealthPals, Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with Novartis that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with Amgen Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with NovoNordisk that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with Movano Health that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with Edwards that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with Inclusive Health that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with HeartFlow that includes: consulting or advisory. Fatima Rodriquez reports a relationship with Kento Health that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The field of long COVID research is rapidly evolving, however, tools to assess and monitor symptoms and recovery of the disease are limited. The objective of the present study was to develop a new patient-reported outcomes instrument, the Symptoms Evolution of Long COVID‑19 (SE-LC19), and establish its content validity., Methods: The 40-item SE-LC19 instrument was developed based on patient-relevant empirical evidence from scientific literature and clinical guidelines that reported symptoms specific to long COVID. A 2-part mixed-method approach was employed. Part 1: Qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 41 patients with confirmed long COVID were conducted for the content validation of SE-LC19. During cognitive debriefing interviews, patients were asked to describe their understanding of the instrument's instructions, specific symptoms, response options, and recall period to ensure its relevance and comprehensiveness. Five clinicians of different medical specialties who regularly treated patients with long COVID were also interviewed to obtain their clinical expert opinions on SE-LC19. Part 2: Exploratory Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SE-LC19 data collected during the interviews., Results: Overall, patients reported that the instructions, questions, recall period, and response options for SE-LC19 were comprehensive and relevant. Minor conceptual gaps reported by patients captured nuances in the experience of some symptoms that could be considered in future studies. Some patients suggested a revision of the recall period from 24 h to 7 days to be able to capture more symptoms given the waxing and waning nature of some symptoms. Clinicians found the instrument comprehensive with minimal suggestions regarding its content. Exploratory RMT analyses provided evidence that the SE-LC19 questionnaire performed as intended., Conclusion: The present mixed-methods study in patients with confirmed long COVID supports the content validity and applicability of the SE-LC19 instrument to evaluate the symptoms of patients with long COVID. Further research is warranted to explore the psychometric properties of the instrument and refine a meaningful and robust patient-relevant endpoint for use in different settings such as clinical trials and clinical practice to track the onset, severity, and recovery of long COVID., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the effects of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) combination on symptoms, daily function, and overall health-related quality of life., Methods: We analyzed patient-reported outcomes data from symptomatic outpatients in a phase 1/2/3 trial. Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥ 1 risk factor for severe COVID-19 received mAb treatment (casirivimab plus imdevimab 1200 mg) or placebo. Prespecified exploratory assessments included time to sustained symptoms resolution, usual health, and return to usual activities (assessed daily for 29 days). The trial was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021, prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination programs and Omicron-lineage variants against which casirivimab + imdevimab is not active., Results: In this analysis 736 outpatients received mAb and 1341 received placebo. Median time to sustained symptoms resolution was consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 14 vs 17 days, [nominal p = 0.0017]; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 17 vs 21 days, [nominal p = 0.0046]). Median time to sustained return to usual health and usual activities were both consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 12 vs 15 days [nominal p = 0.0001] and 9 vs 11 days [nominal p = 0.0001], respectively; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 14 vs 18 days [nominal p = 0.0003] and 10 vs 13 days [nominal p = 0.0041], respectively)., Conclusions: mAb treatment against susceptible SARS-CoV-2 strains improved how patients feel and function, as evidenced by shortened time to sustained symptoms resolution and return to usual health and activities. Future studies are warranted to assess the patient experience with next generation mAbs., Clinicaltrials: GOV: Registration number, NCT04425629; Submission date June 11, 2020., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To examine the prevalence of preexisting articular bone pathology in patients with hip or knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) screened for fasinumab clinical trials., Method: This post-hoc analysis included patients with OA screened for three phase 3 fasinumab studies (NCT02683239, NCT03161093, NCT03304379). During screening, participants who met other clinical inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent radiography of knees, hips, and shoulders. Those with Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) ≥ 2 for index joint and without an exclusionary finding proceeded to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of index, contralateral, and KLG ≥ 3 joints. Exclusionary findings included bone fragmentation/collapse, bone loss/resorption, osteonecrosis, and fracture, by either X-ray or MRI. Participants with extensive subchondral cysts were also excluded. Prevalence of abnormalities on radiographs and MRIs are reported., Results: Of 27,633 participants screened, 21,997 proceeded to imaging. Of these, 1203 (5.5%) were excluded due to the presence of ≥ 1 joint with severe articular bone pathology (X-ray or MRI): bone fragmentation/collapse (2.60%), subchondral insufficiency fracture (SIF; 1.67%), osteonecrosis (1.11%), and significant bone loss (0.32%). Additionally, 3.13% screen-failed due to extensive subchondral cysts. More than half of the exclusions due to bone fragmentation/collapse (386/572), osteonecrosis (141/245) and significant bone loss (59/71), and approximately one third of SIF (133/367) and extensive subchondral cysts (229/689) were evident on X-rays., Conclusions: Approximately one in 20 participants with OA who met the clinical screening criteria for fasinumab phase 3 trials were later excluded due to preexisting severe articular bone pathology findings by X-ray or MRI., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest SE, TH, GM, and NB are all employees of and stakeholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. SJD, HG, GPG, and PD are all employees of and shareholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. who report having three patents pending with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. TN has received grant funding from Pfizer/Lilly; and consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer/Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. TF has received support for this manuscript from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; grants or contracts from various pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies developing new drugs to treat osteoarthritis; and is an equity owner of Clairo, Inc. SZ has nothing to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Plasma lipid levels are modulated by systemic infection and inflammation; it is unknown whether these changes reflect inflammatory responses or caused directly by pathogen presence. We explored the hypothesis that anti-inflammatory intervention via interleukin 6 receptor (IL-6R) blockade would influence plasma lipid levels during severe infection and evaluated the association of plasma lipid changes with clinical outcomes. Sarilumab (monoclonal antibody blocking IL-6R) efficacy was previously assessed in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (NCT04315298). This analysis determined whether strong inflammatory reduction by sarilumab in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia of increasing severity (severe, critical, multisystem organ dysfunction) affected plasma lipid changes between day 1 and day 7 of study therapy. Baseline lipid levels reflected the presence of acute systemic infection, characterized by very low HDL-C, low LDL-C, and moderately elevated triglycerides (TGs). Disease severity was associated with progressively more abnormal lipid levels. At day 7, median lipid levels increased more in the sarilumab versus placebo group (HDL-C +10.3%, LDL-C +54.7%, TG +32% vs. HDL-C +1.7%, LDL-C +15.4%, TG +8.8%, respectively). No significant association between lipid changes and clinical outcomes was observed. In conclusion, severe-to-critical COVID-19 pneumonia causes profound HDL-C depression that is only modestly responsive to strong anti-IL-6R inflammatory intervention. Conversely, LDL-C depression is strongly responsive to IL-6R blockade, with LDL-C levels likely returning to the predisease set point. These results advance our understanding of the complex relationship between serum lipids and infection/inflammation and suggest that HDL-C depression during acute contagious disease is driven by infection and not IL-6-mediated inflammation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest K. M., M. W. S., A. B., P. B., G. P. G., and S. F. are employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The relationship between underlying type 2 inflammation and immune response to COVID-19 is unclear., Objective: To assess the relationships between allergic conditions and COVID-19 susceptibility and outcomes., Methods: In the Optum database, adult patients with and without major allergic conditions (asthma, atopic dermatitis [AD], allergic rhinitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, or eosinophilic esophagitis) and patients with and without severe asthma/AD were identified. Adjusted incidence rate ratios for COVID-19 were compared among patients with vs without allergic conditions or severe asthma/AD vs non-severe asthma/AD during April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Among patients with COVID-19, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality were estimated for the same comparisons during April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022., Results: Patients with (N = 1,273,231; asthma, 47.2%; AD, 1.5%; allergic rhinitis, 58.6%; food allergy, 5.1%; anaphylaxis, 4.1%; eosinophilic esophagitis, 0.9%) and without allergic conditions (N = 2,278,571) were identified. Allergic conditions (adjusted incidence rate ratios [95% CI], 1.22 [1.21-1.24]) and asthma severity (1.12 [1.09-1.15]) were associated with increased incidence of COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19 (patients with [N = 261,076] and without allergic conditions [N = 1,098,135] were matched on age, sex, region, index month), having an allergic condition had minimal impact on 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality (aHR [95% CI] 0.96 [0.95-0.98]) but was associated with a lower risk of mortality (0.80 [0.78-0.83]). Asthma was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality vs non-asthma allergic conditions (aHR [95% CI], 1.27 [1.25-1.30]), mostly driven by higher hospitalization., Conclusion: Allergic conditions were associated with an increased risk of receiving COVID-19 diagnosis but reduced mortality after infection., Competing Interests: Disclosures All the authors are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: There is limited qualitative research on patients' experiences with long COVID-19, and how specific symptoms impact their daily lives. The study aimed to understand patients' lived experiences of long COVID-19 and to develop a conceptual model representing the symptoms and their impact on overall quality of life., Setting: Qualitative study consisting of a comprehensive literature review, and in-depth clinician and patient semistructured interviews., Participants: Forty-one adult patients with long COVID-19, of whom 18 (44%) were recruited through Regeneron Pharmaceuticals's clinical trials and 23 (56%) through recruitment agencies; 85.4% were female and 73.2% were White. Five independent clinicians treating patients with long COVID-19 were interviewed. Concept saturation was also assessed., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Interview transcripts were analysed thematically to identify concepts of interest spontaneously mentioned by patients, including symptoms and their impacts on daily life, to guide the development of the conceptual model., Results: Findings from the literature review and clinician and patient interviews resulted in the development of a conceptual model comprising two overarching domains: symptoms (upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, smell and taste, systemic, gastrointestinal, neurocognitive and other) and impacts (activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, physical impacts, emotional, social/leisure activities and professional impacts). Saturation was achieved for the reported impacts. The symptoms reported were heterogenic; neurocognitive symptoms, such as numbness, ringing in ears, haziness, confusion, forgetfulness/memory problems, brain fog, concentration, difficulties finding the right word and challenges with fine motor skills, were particularly pertinent for several months., Conclusion: The conceptual model, developed based on patient experience data of long COVID-19, highlighted numerous symptoms that impact patients' physical and mental well-being, and suggests humanistic unmet needs. Prospective real-world studies are warranted to understand the pattern of long COVID-19 experienced in larger samples over longer periods of time., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DR is a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. employee/stockholder and former Roche employee, and current stockholder. SS-K, YZ, MH, TDN and GPG are employees/stockholders at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. JYC and KP are employees of Modus Outcomes, and consulted for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. AJP reported receiving personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Imvaria, Boehringer Ingelheim, EBSCO/Dynamed and Roche outside the submitted work. EM reports payments to his institution received from SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Chemic Labs/KODA Therapeutics, Cidara and Leidos Biomedical Research/NCI; and reports Advisory board: Basilea and grants from NIH/NIAID, NIH/NIGMS and BARDA., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Severe, protracted symptoms are associated with poor outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In a placebo-controlled study of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) in persons at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 3816), evolution of individual symptoms was assessed for resolution patterns across risk factors, and baseline SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses against S1 and N domains. CAS + IMD versus placebo provided statistically significant resolution for 17/23 symptoms, with greater response linked to absence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, or specific neutralizing antibodies at baseline, or high baseline viral load. Resolution of five key symptoms (onset days 3-5)-dyspnea, cough, feeling feverish, fatigue, and loss of appetite-independently correlated with reduced hospitalization and death (hazard ratio range: 0.31-0.56; P < 0.001-0.043), and was more rapid in CAS + IMD-treated patients lacking robust early antibody responses. Those who seroconverted late still benefited from treatment. Thus, highly neutralizing COVID-19-specific antibodies provided by CAS + IMD treatment accelerated key symptom resolution associated with hospitalization and death in those at high risk for severe disease as well as in those lacking early, endogenous neutralizing antibody responses., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Objective: Assess the risk of new and worsening cancer events among participants who received the lipid-lowering therapy alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor., Design: Pooled post hoc analysis., Setting: Six phase 3 or phase 4 placebo-controlled randomised trials with alirocumab., Participants: A total of 24,070 patients from the safety population with complete dosing data (alirocumab, n = 12,533; placebo, n = 11,537)., Intervention: Alirocumab 75 mg, alirocumab 150 mg, alirocumab 75 mg increasing to 150 mg if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <50 mg/dL not achieved, or placebo, all every 2 weeks. All participants received background high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin therapy., Outcomes and Measures: The first new or worsening incident cancer events were assessed during the treatment-emergent adverse event period. Four outcomes were evaluated: any-neoplasm, malignant neoplasms, broad definition of hormone-sensitive cancers, and stricter definition of hormone-sensitive cancers. Sub-distribution hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a competing risk framework, with death as a competing risk., Results: Considering both treatment arms in aggregate, 969 (4.03%), 779 (3.24%), 178 (0.74%) and 167 (0.69%) patients developed any neoplasm, malignant neoplasms, broad definition of hormone-sensitive cancer and strict definition of hormone-sensitive cancer events, respectively. There was no significant difference in the risk of having any neoplasm in the alirocumab versus the placebo group (sub-distribution hazards ratio [95% CI], 0.93 [0.82-1.1]; p = 0.28). A nominally lower risk of having any neoplasms with alirocumab was observed among subjects aged ≥64 years (sub-distribution hazards ratio 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99)., Conclusions: Intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering with a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor combined with statin does not appear to increase the risk of new or worsening cancer events., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Atopic march refers to the sequential development of allergic diseases from infancy through adolescence, typically beginning with atopic dermatitis (AD), followed by food allergy and then airway diseases, later evolving to broader or worsened spectrum of allergic diatheses. No intervention has shown to alter its course., Objective: We sought to determine the rate of acquisition of new or worsened allergic events for dupilumab versus placebo in patients with AD., Methods: Allergy-associated events from 12 clinical trials were grouped into 17 allergy categories, and IgE changes from baseline were defined. A new/worsened event was considered one step of atopic march. Treatment effect was assessed by incidence rate ratios (IRRs), dupilumab versus placebo, by meta-analysis., Results: The duration of pooled AD studies was 4 to 52 weeks (1359 patient-years; n = 2296 dupilumab, n = 1229 placebo, median age 35 years). The median age at AD onset was 2 years. Baseline allergic disease burden was comparable between groups. Dupilumab reduced the risk of new/worsening allergies by 34% (IRR 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.84) and new allergies by 37% (IRR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) versus placebo. Including IgE category shift, the IRR for combined new/worsening allergies was reduced by 54% (IRR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.57). These treatment benefits did not reverse on treatment discontinuation in off-treatment follow-up., Conclusions: The acquisition/worsening of allergic conditions suggestive of atopic march was observed in a pooled adult/adolescent AD study population with inadequately controlled AD. Treatment with dupilumab reduced new/worsened allergy events versus placebo; inclusion of IgE category change increased the apparent benefit., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although cholesterol has been hypothesized to promote cancer development through several potential pathways, its role in the risk of developing hormonally driven cancer is controversial. This literature review summarizes evidence from the highest quality studies to examine the consistency and strength of the relationship between serum cholesterol parameters and incidence of hormonally driven cancer. Articles were identified using EMBASE. Longitudinal observational studies published between January 2000 and December 2020 were considered for inclusion. The endpoint of interest was incident prostate, ovary, breast, endometrium, and uterine cancers. In total, 2732 reports were identified and screened; 41 studies were included in the review. No associations were found for ovarian cancer. Most endometrial cancer studies were null. The majority (76.9%) of studies reported no association between cholesterol and prostate cancer. Data on breast cancer were conflicting, associations limited, and effect sizes modest. Our results do not provide evidence for a clear association between cholesterol and different types of incident, hormonally driven reproductive cancers. Future studies should investigate the impact of lipid-lowering therapy., (© 2022 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD)., Methods: In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus., Results: In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to -.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%-74.0%). No safety concerns were noted., Conclusions: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04426695., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. S. S.-K., S. A., Y. Sun, R. B., J. Mei, J. Miller, E. F.-N., C. P., V. P., Y. Z., A. M., J. D. D., Y. K., A. C., B. K., Y. Soo, A. T. D., G. P. G., L. L., N. B., and D. M. W. are employees/stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and report grants from Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). E. M. reports payments to his institution received from National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences, SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Pfizer, Chemic Labs/KODA Therapeutics, Cidara, and Leidos Biomedical Research Inc/NCI. V. P. M. and J. C. W. report grants from BARDA. S. S. is an Excision BioTherapeutics employee/stockholder and former Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, employee and current stockholder, and reports grants from BARDA. L. C. is a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc employee and reports grants from BARDA. A. T. H. is a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc employee/stockholder, a former Pfizer employee and current stockholder, has a patent pending with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc and reports grants from BARDA. J. D. H., K. C. T., and G. A. H. are employees/stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. R. H. is a former employee and current stockholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and reports grants from BARDA. N. S. and G. D. Y. are employees/stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and have issued patents (US Patent Nos. 10 787 501, 10 954 289, and 10 975 139) and pending patents, which have been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and reports grants from BARDA. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

We conducted a post hoc analysis in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for functional neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at baseline from a phase 1, 2, and 3 trial of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants. Patients were randomized to a single dose of 2.4 g CAS+IMD, 8.0 g CAS+IMD, or placebo. Patients seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were analyzed by their baseline neutralizing antibody status. At baseline, 20.6% (178/864) of seropositive patients were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, indicating negative or very low functionally neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. CAS+IMD reduced viral load in patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies versus placebo, but not in patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies. In patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, we observed a trend in reduction of the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation, as well as in all-cause mortality, by day 29 with CAS+IMD versus placebo. The proportions of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation from days 1 to 29 were 19.1% in the placebo group and 10.9% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group, and the proportions of patients who died (all-cause mortality) from days 1 to 29 were 16.2% in the placebo group and 9.1% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group. In patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies, no measurable harm or benefit was observed in either the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation or the proportion of patients who died (all-cause mortality). In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen, CAS+IMD reduced viral load, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies. IMPORTANCE The clinical benefit of CAS+IMD in hospitalized seronegative patients with COVID-19 has previously been demonstrated, although these studies observed no clinical benefit in seropositive patients. As the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive individuals rises due to both vaccination and previous infection, it is important to understand whether there is a subset of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that there is a subset of hospitalized seropositive patients with inadequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies (i.e., those who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies) who may still benefit from CAS+IMD treatment if infected with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant. Therefore, utilizing serostatus alone to guide treatment decisions for patients with COVID-19 may fail to identify those seropositive patients who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapies known to be effective against circulating strains, dependent upon how effectively their endogenous antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2.

Objectives: A phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of repeat monthly doses of subcutaneous (SC) casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) in uninfected adult volunteers., Methods: Participants were randomized (3:1) to SC CAS+IMD 1200 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for up to six doses. Primary and secondary end points evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Exploratory efficacy was evaluated by the incidence of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion., Results: In total, 969 participants received CAS+IMD. Repeat monthly dosing of SC CAS+IMD led to a 92.4% relative risk reduction in clinically defined COVID-19 compared with placebo (3/729 [0.4%] vs 13/240 [5.4%]; odds ratio 0.07 [95% CI 0.01-0.27]), and a 100% reduction in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (0/729 vs 10/240 [4.2%]; odds ratio 0.00). Development of anti-drug antibodies occurred in a small proportion of participants (<5%). No grade ≥3 injection-site reactions (ISRs) or hypersensitivity reactions were reported. Slightly more participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events with CAS+IMD (54.9%) than with placebo (48.3%), a finding that was due to grade 1-2 ISRs. Serious adverse events were rare. No deaths were reported in the 6-month treatment period., Conclusion: Repeat monthly administration of 1200 mg SC CAS+IMD was well-tolerated, demonstrated low immunogenicity, and showed a substantial risk reduction in COVID-19 occurrence., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest FI, MPO, KCT, SG, JDH, and GAH are Regeneron employees/stockholders and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron. EF-N, JM, WZ, LF, NS, BJM, SB, AM, AD, YK, BK, YS, GPG, LL, NB, and DMW are Regeneron employees/stockholders. CB reports grants or contracts from Gilead, Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline for clinical trials. IH is a Regeneron consultant and Merck & Co. stockholder. ATH is a Regeneron employee/stockholder and former Pfizer employee and current stockholder. GDY is a Regeneron employee/stockholder and has issued patents (US Patent Nos. 10,787,501, 10,954,289, and 10,975,139) and pending patents, which have been licensed and receiving royalties, with Regeneron. SR, DA, MO, and SF have no conflicts to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load, hospitalization, or death when administered as a 1200-mg or greater intravenous (IV) dose in a phase 3 COVID-19 outpatient study. Subcutaneous (SC) and/or lower IV doses should increase accessibility and/or drug supplies for patients., Objective: To assess the virologic efficacy of casirivimab and imdevimab across different IV and SC doses compared with placebo., Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study included outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at 47 sites across the United States. Participants could be symptomatic or asymptomatic; symptomatic patients with risk factors for severe COVID-19 were excluded. Data were collected from December 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021., Interventions: Patients were randomized to a single IV dose (523 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 300, 600, 1200, or 2400 mg or placebo; or a single SC dose (292 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 600 or 1200 mg or placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the time-weighted average daily change from baseline (TWACB) in viral load from day 1 (baseline) through day 7 in patients seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline., Results: Among 815 randomized participants, 507 (282 randomized to IV treatment, 148 randomized to SC treatment, and 77 randomized to placebo) were seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Participants randomized to IV had a mean (SD) age of 34.6 (9.6) years (160 [44.6%] men; 14 [3.9%] Black; 121 [33.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 309 [86.1%] White); those randomized to SC had a mean age of 34.1 (10.0) years (102 [45.3%] men; 75 [34.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 6 [2.7%] Black; 190 [84.4%] White). All casirivimab and imdevimab treatments showed significant virologic reduction through day 7. Least-squares mean differences in TWACB viral load for casirivimab and imdevimab vs placebo ranged from -0.56 (95% CI; -0.89 to -0.24) log10 copies/mL for the 1200-mg IV dose to -0.71 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.38) log10 copies/mL for the 2400-mg IV dose. There were no adverse safety signals or dose-related safety findings, grade 2 or greater infusion-related or hypersensitivity reactions, grade 3 or greater injection-site reactions, or fatalities. Two serious adverse events not related to COVID-19 or the study drug were reported., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial including outpatients with asymptomatic and low-risk symptomatic SARS-CoV-2, all IV and SC doses of casirivimab and imdevimab comparably reduced viral load., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04666441.

Importance: Easy-to-administer anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments may be used to prevent progression from asymptomatic infection to symptomatic disease and to reduce viral carriage., Objective: To evaluate the effect of combination subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab on progression from early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection to symptomatic COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2-infected index case at 112 sites in the US, Romania, and Moldova enrolled July 13, 2020-January 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021. Asymptomatic individuals (aged ≥12 years) were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection. Results from 314 individuals positive on SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing are reported., Interventions: Individuals were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg (600 mg of each; n = 158), or placebo (n = 156)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of seronegative participants who developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the 28-day efficacy assessment period. The key secondary efficacy end points were the number of weeks of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and the number of weeks of high viral load (>4 log10 copies/mL)., Results: Among 314 randomized participants (mean age, 41.0 years; 51.6% women), 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period; 204 were asymptomatic and seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg, significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, -13.3% [95% CI, -26.3% to -0.3%]). Casirivimab and imdevimab reduced the number of symptomatic weeks per 1000 participants (895.7 weeks vs 1637.4 weeks with placebo; P = .03), an approximately 5.6-day reduction in symptom duration per symptomatic participant. Treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab also reduced the number of high viral load weeks per 1000 participants (489.8 weeks vs 811.9 weeks with placebo; P = .001). The proportion of participants receiving casirivimab and imdevimab who had 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse event was 33.5% vs 48.1% for placebo, including events related (25.8% vs 39.7%) or not related (11.0% vs 16.0%) to COVID-19., Conclusions and Relevance: Among asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-positive individuals living with an infected household contact, treatment with subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination vs placebo significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04452318.

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of childhood medically attended respiratory infection (MARI)., Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 1154 preterm infants of 1 or 2 doses of suptavumab, a human monoclonal antibody that can bind and block a conserved epitope on RSV A and B subtypes, for the prevention of RSV MARI. The primary endpoint was proportion of subjects with RSV-confirmed hospitalizations or outpatient lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI)., Results: There were no significant differences between primary endpoint rates (8.1%, placebo; 7.7%, 1-dose; 9.3%, 2-dose). Suptavumab prevented RSV A infections (relative risks, .38; 95% confidence interval [CI], .14-1.05 in the 1-dose group and .39 [95% CI, .14-1.07] in the 2-dose group; nominal significance of combined suptavumab group vs placebo; P = .0499), while increasing the rate of RSV B infections (relative risk 1.36 [95% CI, .73-2.56] in the 1-dose group and 1.69 [95% CI, .92-3.08] in the 2-dose group; nominal significance of combined suptavumab group vs placebo; P = .12). Sequenced RSV isolates demonstrated no suptavumab epitope changes in RSV A isolates, while all RSV B isolates had 2-amino acid substitution in the suptavumab epitope that led to loss of neutralization activity. Treatment emergent adverse events were balanced across treatment groups., Conclusions: Suptavumab did not reduce overall RSV hospitalizations or outpatient LRTI because of a newly circulating mutant strain of RSV B. Genetic variation in circulating RSV strains will continue to challenge prevention efforts., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02325791., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: In the phase 1-2 portion of an adaptive trial, REGEN-COV, a combination of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab, reduced the viral load and number of medical visits in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). REGEN-COV has activity in vitro against current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern., Methods: In the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial, we randomly assigned outpatients with Covid-19 and risk factors for severe disease to receive various doses of intravenous REGEN-COV or placebo. Patients were followed through day 29. A prespecified hierarchical analysis was used to assess the end points of hospitalization or death and the time to resolution of symptoms. Safety was also evaluated., Results: Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1355 patients in the REGEN-COV 2400-mg group (1.3%) and in 62 of 1341 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (4.6%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 71.3%; P<0.001); these outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 patients in the REGEN-COV 1200-mg group (1.0%) and in 24 of 748 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (3.2%) (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = 0.002). The median time to resolution of symptoms was 4 days shorter with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P<0.001 for both comparisons). REGEN-COV was efficacious across various subgroups, including patients who were SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody-positive at baseline. Both REGEN-COV doses reduced viral load faster than placebo; the least-squares mean difference in viral load from baseline through day 7 was -0.71 log 10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.53) in the 1200-mg group and -0.86 log 10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.72) in the 2400-mg group. Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the placebo group (4.0%) than in the 1200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2400-mg group (1.3%); infusion-related reactions of grade 2 or higher occurred in less than 0.3% of the patients in all groups., Conclusions: REGEN-COV reduced the risk of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, and it resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more rapidly than placebo. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

A 59-year-old male with follicular lymphoma treated by anti-CD20-mediated B-cell depletion and ablative chemotherapy was hospitalized with a COVID-19 infection. Although the patient did not develop specific humoral immunity, he had a mild clinical course overall. The failure of all therapeutic options allowed infection to persist nearly 300 days with active accumulation of SARS-CoV-2 virus mutations. As a rescue therapy, an infusion of REGEN-COV (10933 and 10987) anti-spike monoclonal antibodies was performed 270 days from initial diagnosis. Due to partial clearance after the first dose (2.4 g), a consolidation dose (8 g) was infused six weeks later. Complete virus clearance could then be observed over the following month, after he was vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech anti-COVID-19 vaccination. The successful management of this patient required prolonged enhanced quarantine, monitoring of virus mutations, pioneering clinical decisions based upon close consultation, and the coordination of multidisciplinary experts in virology, immunology, pharmacology, input from REGN, the FDA, the IRB, the health care team, the patient, and the patient's family. Current decisions to take revolve around patient's follicular lymphoma management, and monitoring for virus clearance persistence beyond disappearance of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibodies after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Overall, specific guidelines for similar cases should be established.

Introduction: Identifying risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 requiring urgent medical visits and hospitalizations (UMVs) among patients initially diagnosed in the outpatient setting may help inform patient management. The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of and risk factors for COVID-19-related UMVs after outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis or positive SARS-CoV-2 test., Methods: Data for this retrospective cohort study were from the Optum ® de-identified COVID-19 Electronic Health Record database from June 1 to December 9, 2020. Adults with first COVID-19 diagnosis or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in outpatient settings were identified. Cumulative incidence function analysis stratified by risk factors was used to estimate the 30-day incidence of COVID-19-related UMVs. Competing risk regression models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for factors associated with UMVs., Results: Among 206,741 patients [58.8% female, 77.5% non-Hispanic Caucasian, mean (SD) age: 46.7 (17.8) years], the 30-day incidence was 9.4% (95% CI 9.3-9.6) for COVID-19-related emergency room (ER)/urgent care (UC)/hospitalizations and 3.8% (95% CI 3.7-3.9) for COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Likelihood of hospitalization increased with age and body mass index, with age the strongest risk factor (aHR 5.61; 95% CI 4.90-6.32 for patients ≥ 85 years). Increased likelihood of hospitalization was observed for first presentation in the ER/UC vs. non-ER/UC outpatient settings (aHR 2.35; 95% CI 2.22-2.47) and prior all-cause hospitalization (aHR 1.90; 95% CI 1.79-2.00). Clinical risk factors of hospitalizations included pregnancy, uncontrolled diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and autoimmune disease. A study limitation is that data on COVID-19 severity and symptoms were not captured., Conclusion: Predictors of COVID-19-related UMVs include older age, obesity, and several comorbidities. These findings may inform patient management and resource allocation following outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis.

Objectives: To study the efficacy and safety of fasinumab in moderate-to-severe, chronic low back pain (CLBP)., Methods: In this phase II/III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CLBP aged ≥35 years with inadequate pain relief/intolerance to acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were randomised to fasinumab 6 or 9 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks (Q4W), 9 mg intravenous every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 16 in average daily low back pain intensity (LBPI) numeric rating score. Key secondary efficacy variables included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Patient Global Assessment (PGA). The results are based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis of 563/800 planned patients when enrolment was stopped early given emerging signals of joint risk in other osteoarthritis (OA) studies at doses being tested here., Results: Significant placebo-adjusted LBPI reductions at week 16 were observed for fasinumab 9 mg Q4W and Q8W (least squares mean (standard error) -0.7 (0.3); both nominal p<0.05), but not 6 mg (-0.3 (0.3); p=0.39). RMDQ and PGA improvements to week 16 were greatest for fasinumab 9 mg intravenous. Numerically greater efficacy occurred in patients with, versus those without, peripheral OA (pOA) over 16 weeks. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 274/418 (65.6%) patients in the combined fasinumab groups and 94/140 (67.1%) placebo patients. Joint AEs, mostly rapid progressive OA type 1, were more frequent in the combined fasinumab groups (19 events in 16 patients (3.8%) vs 1 event in 1 patient (0.7%) for placebo); all except one occurred in pOA patients., Conclusions: Fasinumab highest doses, but not lower dose, improved both CLBP pain and function. Most joint AEs occurred in pOA patients, consistent with earlier findings in symptomatic OA. Further study is needed of patients with CLBP with and without pOA to determine optimal benefit-risk., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PD, SJD, CAE, HG, GPG, NS, DMW and GDY are employees of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. JG reports consulting fees from Pfizer and participation in other activities with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. AJK reports participation in other activities with Altoona Center for Clinical Research, PC, during the conduct of the study; and other activities from AbbVie, Celgene, Horizon, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Genzyme, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Amgen and Gilead, outside the submitted work. NS reports grants from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of this study; and personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Orthofix, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To prospectively assess the efficacy, general safety, and joint safety of fasinumab, an anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in osteoarthritis (OA) hip and/or knee pain., Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe OA pain (knee or hip) and history of inadequate response or intolerance to analgesics were randomized to receive fasinumab (at 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, or 9 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks over 16 weeks and were followed up to week 36. Efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 16 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and patient global assessment (PGA) of OA. Joints were monitored at scheduled assessments (by plain film radiography and magnetic resonance imaging) during treatment and follow-up, and if prompted, at the time of active joint symptoms., Results: Of the 421 patients randomized, 342 completed the 36-week study. All doses of fasinumab yielded statistically significant and clinically important reductions in pain compared to placebo (least squares mean difference in WOMAC pain subscale scores at week 16 ranging -0.78 to -1.40), without any clear dose dependence. Physical function and PGA scores improved in parallel. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 17% with fasinumab and 10% with placebo, and 4% and 1% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment. Arthropathies (25 in total, 7% of fasinumab-treated patients and 1% of placebo-treated patients) occurred in a dose-dependent manner, with 2 occurring in patients receiving the lowest dose of fasinumab and 10 in patients receiving the highest dose. Most of the arthropathies (16 of 25) were discovered with scheduled radiographs and not based on symptoms. Destructive arthropathy (in 1 of 337 treated patients) occurred in 1 patient who was receiving 6 mg fasimumab., Conclusion: Fasinumab provided improvements in OA pain and function, even in those benefitting little from previous analgesics. The observed benefit-to-risk relationship favors further clinical development to explore the lowest doses of fasinumab in patients with knee or hip OA., (© 2019 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Purpose: Dronedarone is a benzofuran derivative with a pharmacological profile similar to amiodarone but has a more rapid onset of action and a much shorter half-life (13-19 h). Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy of dronedarone in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients using dual-chamber pacemakers capable of quantifying atrial fibrillation burden., Methods: Pacemakers were adjusted to optimize AF detection. Patients with AF burden >1% were randomized to dronedarone 400 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo. Pacemakers were interrogated after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the change in AF burden from baseline over the 12-week treatment period. Patients with permanent AF, severe/recently decompensated heart failure, and current use of antiarrhythmic drugs were excluded. AF burden was assessed by a core laboratory blinded to treatment assignment., Results: From 285 patients screened, 112 were randomized (mean age 76 years, 60% male, 84% hypertensive, 65% with sick sinus syndrome, 26% with diabetes mellitus type II, 15% with heart failure). Baseline mean (SEM) AF burden was 8.77% (0.16) for placebo and 10.14% (0.17) for dronedarone. Over the 12-week study period, AF burden compared to baseline decreased by 54.4% (0.22) (P = 0.0009) with dronedarone and trended higher by 12.8% (0.16) (P = 0.450) with placebo. The absolute change in burden was decreased by 5.5% in the dronedarone group and increased by 1.1% in the placebo group. Heart rate during AF was reduced to approximately 4 beats/min with dronedarone (P = 0.285). Adverse events were higher with dronedarone compared to placebo (65 vs 56%)., Conclusions: Dronedarone reduced pacemaker-assessed the relative AF burden compared to baseline and placebo by over 50% during the 12-week observation period.

Pre-clinical data demonstrate a pivotal role for interleukin (IL)-13 in the development and maintenance of asthma. This study assessed the effects of tralokinumab, an investigational human IL-13-neutralising immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody, in adults with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma despite controller therapies. 194 subjects were randomised to receive tralokinumab (150, 300 or 600 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Primary end-point was change from baseline in mean Asthma Control Questionnaire score (ACQ-6; ACQ mean of six individual item scores) at week 13 comparing placebo and combined tralokinumab dose groups. Secondary end-points included pre-bronchodilator lung function, rescue β(2)-agonist use and safety. Numerical end-points are reported as mean±sd. At week 13, change from baseline in ACQ-6 was -0.76±1.04 for tralokinumab versus -0.61±0.90 for placebo (p=0.375). Increases from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) were 0.21±0.38 L versus 0.06±0.48 L (p=0.072), with a dose-response observed across the tralokinumab doses tested. β(2)-agonist use (puffs per day) was decreased for tralokinumab -0.68±1.45 versus placebo -0.10±1.49 (p=0.020). The increase in FEV(1) following tralokinumab treatment remained evident 12 weeks after the final dose. Safety profile was acceptable with no serious adverse events related to tralokinumab. No improvement in ACQ-6 was observed, although tralokinumab treatment was associated with improved lung function.

Interleukin-5 is a Th2 homodimeric cytokine involved in the differentiation, maturation, migration, development, survival, trafficking and effector function of blood and local tissue eosinophils, in addition to basophils and mast cells. The IL-5 receptor (IL-5R) consists of an IL-5-specific α subunit that interacts in conformationally dynamic ways with the receptor's βc subunit, an aggregate of domains it shares with binding sites of IL-3 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. IL-5 and IL-5R drive allergic and inflammatory immune responses characterizing numerous diseases, such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, hyper-eosinophilic syndrome, Churg-Strauss syndrome and eosinophilic nasal polyposis. Although corticosteroid therapy is the primary treatment for these diseases, a substantial number of patients exhibit incomplete responses and suffer side-effects. Two monoclonal antibodies have been designed to neutralize IL-5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab). Both antibodies have demonstrated the ability to reduce blood and tissue eosinophil counts. One additional monoclonal antibody, benralizumab (MEDI-563), has been developed to target IL-5R and attenuate eosinophilia through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. All three monoclonal antibodies are being clinically evaluated. Antisense oligonucleotide technology targeting the common βc IL-5R subunit is also being used therapeutically to inhibit IL-5-mediated effects (TPI ASM8). Small interfering RNA technology has also been used therapeutically to inhibit the expression of IL-5 in animal models. This review summarizes the structural interactions between IL-5 and IL-5R and the functional consequences of such interactions, and describes the pre-clinical and clinical evidence supporting IL-5R as a therapeutic target., (© 2011 MedImmune, LLC.)

Asthma is a complex disease characterized by variable airflow limitation, hyperresponsiveness, and airways inflammation. Despite valuable therapeutic advances to control asthma symptoms in the last decade, a quantifiable proportion of patients with moderate to severe asthma continue to experience inadequate disease control, highlighting an important unmet need. In animal models of asthma, interleukin (IL)-9 regulates the development of airway inflammation, mucus production, airway hyperresponsiveness, and airway fibrosis largely by increasing mast cell numbers and activity in the airways. Mast cells are involved in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma. Thus, targeting the IL-9 pathway may provide a new therapeutic modality for asthma. The purpose of this review is to summarize the IL-9-mast cell axis in the pathogenesis of asthma and discuss clinical studies with a humanized anti-IL-9 monoclonal antibody, MEDI-528, in subjects with asthma.

Background: In individuals with asthma, potential central nervous system changes can occur as a consequence of their asthma or therapy. Clinical trials of anti-asthmatic therapies might benefit from using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess potential brain abnormalities., Purpose: As part of the clinical safety evaluation of a monoclonal antibody directed against interleukin-9 for the treatment of asthma, we assessed whether brain MRI is an appropriate screening tool to evaluate potential neurotoxicity., Methods: Brain MRIs were conducted as part of a prespecified safety evaluation in adults aged 19 to 47 years with mild to moderate asthma treated with either the investigational monoclonal antibody or placebo. An independent neuroradiologist performed a blinded review of brain MRI scans obtained at baseline before dosing and day 28 after dosing from two separate clinical studies., Results: Fifteen brain MRI abnormalities were noted in 13 of 21 subjects with asthma (62%). Nonspecific deep white matter hyperintensities (24%), perivascular space (24%), and abnormal anatomic findings (14%) were noted either at baseline or follow-up. Only 8 of 21 subjects (38%) with asthma had normal brain MRI results., Conclusions: The high rate of incidental brain MRI findings suggests that these abnormalities are relatively common in patients with asthma. Thus, brain MRI may not be an appropriate screening tool to evaluate potential neurotoxicity in subjects during routine clinical studies without a baseline examination. Due to artifacts simulating lesions, an experienced radiologist should interpret all brain MRI results., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Asthma guidelines advocate maintaining asthma control while minimizing corticosteroid exposure., Objective: To assess the reduction in corticosteroid burden during long-term treatment and the corresponding impact of this reduction on asthma control, lung function, and inflammation in patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma., Methods: We conducted a pooled analysis (N = 1,071) of 2 similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled omalizumab trials and their extension phases. Each study included a 16-week steroid-stable phase, a 12-week steroid-reduction phase, and a 24-week extension phase. Patients received subcutaneous omalizumab (minimum, 0.016 mg/kg/IU (IgE/mL) every 4 weeks) or placebo every 2 or 4 weeks. Outcomes included change from baseline in inhaled corticosteroid dose, number of oral corticosteroid bursts, and other clinical measures, including asthma exacerbations and change in asthma quality-of-life score (questionnaire), lung function, and eosinophil count., Results: The median reduction from baseline in inhaled corticosteroid dose (beclomethasone dipropionate equivalent dose) by the completion of the extension phase was greater for the omalizumab group than for the placebo group (-420.0 vs -252.0 μg/d; P < .001). During that time, omalizumab-treated patients required fewer oral corticosteroid bursts overall for treatment of acute exacerbations (mean, 0.2 vs 0.3; relative risk, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.76; P < .001) and demonstrated greater improvements in measures of asthma control., Conclusion: The addition of omalizumab to baseline therapy in patients 12 years or older with moderate to severe persistent allergic asthma resulted in a durable reduction in the overall steroid burden and improvement in other clinical measures of asthma control., (Copyright © 2010 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Increased eosinophil levels have been linked to airway inflammation and asthma exacerbations. IL-5 is responsible for eosinophil differentiation, proliferation, and activation; IL-5 receptors are expressed on eosinophils and their progenitors, and targeting such receptors induces eosinophil apoptosis., Objective: To evaluate the safety profile, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of MEDI-563, a humanized mAb targeting the IL-5 receptor alpha chain., Methods: Single, escalating, intravenous doses (0.0003-3 mg/kg) of MEDI-563 were administered to subjects with mild atopic asthma (n = 44) over approximately 3 to 30 minutes in this open-label study. Pulmonary function, symptom scores, adverse events, MEDI-563 pharmacokinetics, and levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-6, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), and eosinophils were evaluated., Results: Mean peripheral blood (PB) eosinophil levels decreased in a dose-dependent fashion (baseline +/- SD, 0.27 +/- 0.2 x 10(3)/microL; 24 hours postdose, 0.01 +/- 0.0 x 10(3)/microL); 94.0% of subjects receiving >or=0.03 mg/kg exhibited levels between 0.00 x 10(3)/microL and 0.01 x 10(3)/microL. Eosinopenia lasted at least 8 or 12 weeks with doses of 0.03 to 0.1 and 0.3 to 3 mg/kg, respectively. ECP levels were reduced from 21.4 +/- 17.2 microg/L (baseline) to 10.3 +/- 7.0 microg/L (24 hours postdose). The most frequently reported adverse events were reduced white blood cell counts (34.1%), nasopharyngitis (27.3%), and increased blood creatine phosphokinase (25.0%). Mean C-reactive protein levels increased approximately 5.5-fold at 24 hours postdose but returned to baseline by study end; mean IL-6 levels increased approximately 3.9-fold to 4.7-fold at 6 to 12 hours postdose, respectively. Pharmacokinetic activity was dose proportional at doses of 0.03 to 3 mg/kg., Conclusion: Single escalating doses of MEDI-563 had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in marked reduction of PB eosinophil counts within 24 hours after dosing., (Copyright (c) 2010 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In a phase-1 study, siplizumab, a humanized anti-CD2 monoclonal antibody, was administered (0.012 or 0.04 mg/kg) to 10 pediatric patients with > or = grade-II newly diagnosed, non-steroid-refractory aGvHD after BMT or PBSCT. SAEs and other AEs including infections, and GvHD staging changes (overall, skin, liver, gut) were evaluated over 364 days. Patients reported a total of 121 AEs (19 grade-3, 5 grade-4 0.012 mg/kg group; 17 grade-3, 17 grade-4 0.04 mg/kg group) and 14 SAEs (five grade-3, three grade-4, 0.012 mg/kg group; three grade-3, 0.04 mg/kg group); 15 AEs in five patients and four SAEs in three patients (fever, PTLD, adenoviral infection, and EBV lymphoma) were considered siplizumab-related. Six deaths occurred (study days 17-267); two were considered siplizumab-related: one from EBV-associated PTLD (0.012 mg/kg) and one from adenoviral infection (0.04 mg/kg); the other four deaths could potentially be attributed in part to study drug Three patients (one, 0.012 mg/kg group; two, 0.04 mg/kg group) developed PTLD. By study day 12, GvHD grade decreased in 3/5 and 2/5 patients in the 0.012 and 0.04 mg/kg groups, respectively; remission (grade 0) occurred in one patient in each group. Four of five patients (0.012 mg/kg group) and one of four patients (0.04 mg/kg group) achieved grade 0 GvHD during the first 100 study days (55.6% response). While treatment with siplizumab was associated with improvement of GvHD and remission in some pediatric patients, the overall high morbidity, mortality, and occurrence of PTLD is of safety concern, not warranting further development of siplizumab for the treatment of aGvHD in children.

Asthma is a complex, persistent, inflammatory disease characterised by airway hyperresponsiveness in association with airway inflammation. Studies suggest that regular use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators or omalizumab (a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to immunoglobulin E and is often used as next-step therapy) may not be sufficient to provide asthma control in all patients, highlighting an important unmet need. Interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and the signal transducer and activator of transcription factor-6 are key components in the development of airway inflammation, mucus production, and airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma. Biological compounds targeting these molecules may provide a new therapeutic modality for patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. The purpose of this review is to summarise current studies of compounds targeting the interleukin-4/interleukin-13 pathway and to provide a rationale for the development of such compounds for this use.