Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized, controlled trial, the number of angioedema attacks per month was approximately 75% lower among adults with hereditary angioedema who received a CRISPR-Cas9–based therapy than among those who received placebo.

Hereditary angioedema is a rare genetic disease that leads to severe and unpredictable swelling attacks. NTLA-2002 is an in vivo gene-editing therapy based on clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-CRISPR-associated protein 9. NTLA-2002 targets the gene encoding kallikrein B1 ( ), with the goal of lifelong control of angioedema attacks after a single dose. In this phase 1 dose-escalation portion of a combined phase 1-2 trial of NTLA-2002 in adults with hereditary angioedema, we administered NTLA-2002 at a single dose of 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg. The primary end points were the safety and side-effect profile of NTLA-2002 therapy. Secondary and exploratory end points included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical efficacy determined on the basis of investigator-confirmed angioedema attacks. Three patients received 25 mg of NTLA-2002, four received 50 mg, and three received 75 mg. At all dose levels, the most common adverse events were infusion-related reactions and fatigue. No dose-limiting toxic effects, serious adverse events, grade 3 or higher adverse events, or clinically important laboratory findings were observed after the administration of NTLA-2002. Dose-dependent reductions in the total plasma kallikrein protein level were observed between baseline and the latest assessment, with a mean percentage change of -67% in the 25-mg group, -84% in the 50-mg group, and -95% in the 75-mg group. The mean percentage change in the number of angioedema attacks per month between baseline and weeks 1 through 16 (primary observation period) was -91% in the 25-mg group, -97% in the 50-mg group, and -80% in the 75-mg group. Among all the patients, the mean percentage change in the number of angioedema attacks per month from baseline through the latest assessment was -95%. In this small study, a single dose of NTLA-2002 led to robust, dose-dependent, and durable reductions in total plasma kallikrein levels, and no severe adverse events were observed. In exploratory analyses, reductions in the number of angioedema attacks per month were observed at all dose levels. (Funded by Intellia Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05120830.).

ACE inhibitor (ACEi) induced angioedema predominantly affects the upper aerodigestive tract. As ACEi induced angioedema is mediated by bradykinin, therapeutic response to antihistamines and glucocorticoids remains unsatisfactory. In bradykinin mediated hereditary angioedema, C1-esterase inhibitor (C1INH) is an effective and approved treatment since many years. Our aim was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of C1INH in ACEi induced angioedema. We performed a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial between December 2013 and September 2018. Eligible were adults with ACEi induced angioedema with airway obstruction. Participants were randomised 1:1 to single doses of either C1INH (20 IU/kg) or placebo (0.9% NaCl) i.v in addition to standard care (i.v. 500 mg prednisolone and 2.68 mg clemastine) i.v. Composite symptom scores were assessed at baseline and up to 48 h, at discharge and 1 week after discharge. Physician assessed time to complete oedema resolution (TCER) and time to onset of relief (TOR). 30 patients (16 C1INH, 14 placebo) were randomised and dosed. 25 (9 C1INH, 12 placebo) completed the study. TCER was 29.63 h ± 15.56 h in the C1INH and 17.29 h ± 10.40 h in the placebo arm (p = 0.0457). TORs were 4.13 h ± 3.38 h and 2.86 h ± 1.29 h for C1INH and placebo, respectively (p = 0.4443). There were no adverse events related to study medication. In the context of baseline application of steroids and antihistamines C1INH was inferior in the treatment of ACEi induced angioedema when compared to placebo with respect to time to complete resolution of symptoms. Eudra-CT Number: 2012-001670-28.

Background Bradykinin-mediated angioedema (Bk-AE) can be life-threatening and requires specific targeted therapies. Knowledge of its epidemiology may help optimize its management. Methods We systematically searched the medical literature to identify abstracts of interest indexed between 1948 and March, 2016. We used published national survey data on the proportion of the population treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) to derive estimates of the population prevalence of ACEI-AE in the USA, Germany and France. For hereditary angioedema (C1-INH-HAE) and C1-inhibitor related acquired angioedema (C1-INH-AAE), publications had to contain original epidemiologic data collection within a defined geographical area. Hereditary angioedema with normal C1-INH was not included in the analysis due to lack of clearly defined criteria. Results We identified 4 relevant publications on the prevalence of ACEI-AE, 6 on the prevalence of C1-INH-HAE, and 1 on the prevalence of C1-INH-AAE. The 1st year cumulative incidence of ACEI-AE was estimated to vary between 0.12 (population-based analyses) and 0.30 (meta-analyses of clinical trials) per 100 patient-years. The population prevalence of ACEI-AE was modeled to vary between 7 and 26 in 100,000. The prevalence of C1-INH-HAE was estimated to vary between 1.1 and 1.6 per 100,000. The prevalence of C1-INH-AAE was estimated to be 0.15 per 100,000 in one epidemiological investigation of AAE in Denmark. Conclusions Epidemiological evidence on Bk-AE is limited to North America and Europe. ACEI-AE is more common than C1-INH-HAE (~ 10:1), which is more common than C1-INH-AAE (~ 10:1). More studies are needed to comprehensively assess the epidemiological burden of Bk-AE.

Angioedema is a prevailing symptom in different diseases, frequently occurring in the presence of urticaria. Recurrent angioedema without urticaria (AE) can be hereditary (HAE) and acquired (AAE), and several subtypes can be distinguished, although clinical presentation is quite similar in some of them. They present with subcutaneous and mucosal swellings, affecting extremities, face, genitals, bowels, and upper airways. AE is commonly misdiagnosed due to restricted access and availability of appropriate laboratorial tests. HAE with C1 inhibitor defect is associated with quantitative and/or functional deficiency. Although bradykinin-mediated disease results mainly from disturbance in the kallikrein–kinin system, traditionally complement evaluation has been used for diagnosis. Diagnosis is established by nephelometry, turbidimetry, or radial immunodiffusion for quantitative measurement of C1 inhibitor, and chromogenic assay or ELISA has been used for functional C1-INH analysis. Wrong handling of the samples can lead to misdiagnosis and, consequently, mistaken inappropriate approaches. Dried blood spot (DBS) tests have been used for decades in newborn screening for certain metabolic diseases, and there has been growing interest in their use for other congenital conditions. Recently, DBS is now proposed as an efficient tool to diagnose HAE with C1 inhibitor deficiency, and its use would improve the access to outbound areas and family members. Regarding HAE with normal C1 inhibitor, complement assays’ results are normal and the genetic sequencing of target genes, such as exon 9 of F12 and PLG , is the only available method. New methods to measure cleaved high-molecular-weight kininogen and activated plasma kallikrein have emerged as potential biochemical tests to identify bradykinin-mediated angioedema. Validated biomarkers of kallikrein–kinin system activation could be helpful in differentiating mechanisms of angioedema. Our aim is to focus on the capability to differentiate histaminergic AE from bradykinin-mediated AE. In addition, we will describe the challenges developing specific tests like direct bradykinin measurements. The need for quality tests to improve the diagnosis is well represented by the variability of results in functional assays.

In this placebo-controlled trial, CSL830, a subcutaneous C1 inhibitor, significantly reduced the rate of hereditary angioedema attacks; local site reactions were the dominant side effect. Of the patients who received 60 IU per kilogram twice weekly, 40% had no attacks for 16 weeks. Hereditary angioedema is a disabling and potentially fatal condition characterized by recurrent episodes of swelling without urticaria or pruritus. The condition is caused by deficiency (type I) or dysfunction (type II) of the C1 inhibitor protein. 1 Patients have insufficient C1 inhibitor function to prevent bradykinin production by the contact system, leading to episodes of increased capillary hyperpermeability and swelling. These episodes manifest clinically as angioedema attacks. 2 , 3 Low levels of C1 inhibitor protein antigen or low functional levels of C1 inhibitor activity, as well as low levels of complement C4, are diagnostic for hereditary angioedema, and baseline C1 inhibitor function . . .

Hereditary angioedema is a rare and potentially life-threatening genetic disease that is associated with kallikrein–kinin system dysregulation. Garadacimab (CSL312), a novel, fully-human monoclonal antibody that inhibits activated factor XII (FXIIa), is being studied for the prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-monthly subcutaneous administrations of garadacimab as prophylaxis for hereditary angioedema. VANGUARD was a pivotal, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that recruited patients (aged ≥12 years) with type I or type II hereditary angioedema across seven countries (Canada, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, and the USA). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (3:2) to receive garadacimab or placebo for 6 months (182 days) by an interactive response technology (IRT) system. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤17 years vs >17 years) and baseline attack rate (1 to <3 attacks per month vs ≥3 attacks per month) for the adult group. The randomisation list and code were kept by the IRT provider during the study, with no access by site staff and funding representatives. All patients and investigational site staff, and representatives from the funder (or their delegates) with direct interaction with the study sites or patients, were masked to treatment assignment in a double-blind fashion. Randomly assigned patients received a 400-mg loading dose of subcutaneous garadacimab as two 200-mg injections or volume-matched placebo on day 1 of the treatment period, followed by five additional self-administered (or caregiver-administered) monthly doses of 200-mg subcutaneous garadacimab or volume-matched placebo. The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed time-normalised number of hereditary angioedema attacks (number of hereditary angioedema attacks per month) during the 6-month treatment period (day 1 to day 182). Safety was evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of garadacimab or placebo. The study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2020-000570-25 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04656418. Between Jan 27, 2021, and June 7, 2022, we screened 80 patients, 76 of whom were eligible to enter the run-in period of the study. Of 65 eligible patients with type I or type II hereditary angioedema, 39 were randomly assigned to garadacimab and 26 to placebo. One patient was randomly assigned in error and did not enter the treatment period (no dose of study drug received), resulting in 39 patients assigned to garadacimab and 25 patients assigned to placebo being included. 38 (59%) of 64 participants were female and 26 (41%) were male. 55 (86%) of 64 participants were White, six (9%) were Asian (Japanese), one (2%) was Black or African American, one (2%) was Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and one (2%) was listed as other. During the 6-month treatment period (day 1 to day 182), the mean number of investigator-confirmed hereditary angioedema attacks per month was significantly lower in the garadacimab group (0·27, 95% CI 0·05 to 0·49) than in the placebo group (2·01, 1·44 to 2·57; p<0·0001), corresponding to a percentage difference in means of –87% (95% CI –96 to –58; p<0·0001). The median number of hereditary angioedema attacks per month was 0 (IQR 0·00–0·31) for garadacimab and 1·35 (1·00–3·20) for placebo. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were upper-respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headaches. FXIIa inhibition was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding or thromboembolic events. Monthly garadacimab administration significantly reduced hereditary angioedema attacks in patients aged 12 years and older compared with placebo and had a favourable safety profile. Our results support the use of garadacimab as a potential prophylactic therapy for the treatment of hereditary angioedema in adolescents and adults. CSL Behring.

Bradykinin-mediated angioedema comprises rare but potentially life-threatening disorders, most notably hereditary angioedema (HAE) due to C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency or dysfunction. Diagnosis is often difficult, as these conditions can resemble urticaria variants, leading to misdiagnosis and delays in care. Distinguishing features are critical, since bradykinin-mediated forms do not respond to antihistamines or corticosteroids. This review summarizes the differential diagnoses of angioedema, including urticaria variants, cheilitis granulomatosa, and hypocomplementemic urticarial vasculitis, highlighting clinical and diagnostic clues. Particular focus is given to HAE—its subtypes (Type I, Type II, and normal C1-INH), pathophysiology, presentation, and genetic basis. Acquired angioedema and drug-induced forms, such as ACE inhibitor–associated angioedema, are also discussed. The therapeutic landscape is rapidly evolving, spanning acute and prophylactic approaches. Options include C1-INH concentrate, kallikrein inhibitors, bradykinin receptor antagonists, and factor XII inhibitors. While these advances expand treatment opportunities, they also complicate decision-making for patients and physicians. Furthermore, emerging CRISPR-based gene editing therapies represent innovative approaches that pose complex ethical dilemmas, and their long-term safety and efficacy have yet to be established. Although novel therapies reduce attack frequency, their true impact on quality of life is not fully established. Comparative effectiveness data are limited, long-term safety—particularly of gene-based therapies—is unknown, and the real-world utility of new oral on-demand agents for acute therapy is uncertain, especially in severe pharyngeal or laryngeal attacks that may hinder swallowing. Current guidelines remain unclear on the need for short-term prophylaxis in patients already receiving effective long-term prophylactic therapy. In conclusion, despite major therapeutic advances, persistent challenges and unanswered questions underscore the need for pragmatic, patient-centered, long-term studies to optimize care.