Explore the vast range of titles available.

Nemolizumab, an interleukin (IL)-31 receptor subunit α antagonist, inhibits the IL-31 pathway of itch and skin inflammation in atopic dermatitis. Two international phase 3 studies were done to assess the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab in atopic dermatitis. In this Article we report results for the 16-week initial treatment period of both trials. ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 were identical 48-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in adult and adolescent participants (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, associated pruritus, and inadequate response to topical steroids. Participants were enrolled from 281 clinics, hospitals, and academic centres in 22 countries across both trials, and were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously (baseline loading dose 60 mg) or matching placebo once every 4 weeks with background topical corticosteroids (TCS) with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI; ie, TCS–TCI background treatment). Randomisation was done via interactive response technology and stratified by baseline disease and pruritus severity. Study staff and participants were masked throughout the study, with outcome assessors masked until database lock. Coprimary endpoints at week 16 post-baseline were Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 [clear skin] or 1 [almost clear skin] with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline) and at least 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline (EASI-75 response). Outcome rates were compared between groups with the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test adjusting for randomisation strata. The key secondary endpoints were the proportion of participants with Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score improvement of at least 4 points at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 16; PP-NRS score below 2 at weeks 4 and 16; Sleep Disturbance Numerical Rating Scale score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; EASI-75 response plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; and IGA success plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16. Efficacy analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis; safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of nemolizumab or placebo. Both studies are completed (ClinicalTrials.gov: ARCADIA 1, NCT03985943 and ARCADIA 2, NCT03989349). Between Aug 9, 2019, and Nov 2, 2022, 1728 participants were enrolled across both trials: 1142 were allocated to nemolizumab plus TCS–TCI (620 in ARCADIA 1 and 522 in ARCADIA 2) and 586 to placebo plus TCS–TCI (321 in ARCADIA 1 and 265 in ARCADIA 2). ARCADIA 1 included 500 (53%) male participants and 441 (47%) female participants, and ARCADIA 2 included 381 (48%) male participants and 406 (52%) female participants. Mean age ranged from 33·3 (SD 15·6) years to 35·2 (17·0) years across the treatment groups. Both trials met the coprimary endpoints; at week 16, a greater proportion of participants receiving nemolizumab plus TCS–TCI versus placebo plus TCS–TCI had IGA success (ARCADIA 1: 221 [36%] of 620 vs 79 [25%] of 321, adjusted percentage difference 11·5% [97·5% CI 4·7–18·3], p=0·0003; ARCADIA 2: 197 [38%] of 522 vs 69 [26%] of 265, adjusted difference 12·2% [4·6–19·8], p=0·0006) and an EASI-75 response (ARCADIA 1: 270 [44%] vs 93 [29%], adjusted difference 14·9% [7·8–22·0], p<0·0001; ARCADIA 2: 220 [42%] vs 80 [30%], adjusted difference 12·5% [4·6–20·3], p=0·0006). Significant benefits were observed with nemolizumab for all key secondary endpoints including improvement in itch, as early as week 1, and sleep improvement by week 16. The safety profile was similar between nemolizumab plus TCS–TCI and placebo plus TCS–TCI. In the safety sets, 306 (50%) of 616 participants (ARCADIA 1) and 215 (41%) of 519 participants (ARCADIA 2) who received nemolizumab plus TCS–TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in six [1%] and 13 [3%], respectively); and 146 (45%) of 321 (ARCADIA 1) and 117 (44%) of 263 (ARCADIA 2) who received placebo plus TCS–TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in four [1%] and three [1%], respectively). Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events possibly related to nemolizumab were reported in five (1%) participants in ARCADIA 2. No deaths occurred. Nemolizumab plus TCS–TCI was efficacious and showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and itch in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of current therapies if approved. Galderma.

This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter study compared carfilzomib monotherapy against low-dose corticosteroids and optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients were randomized (1:1) to receive carfilzomib (10-min intravenous infusion; 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 27 mg/m 2 thereafter) or a control regimen of low-dose corticosteroids (84 mg of dexamethasone or equivalent corticosteroid) with optional cyclophosphamide (1400 mg) for 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Three-hundred and fifteen patients were randomized to carfilzomib ( n =157) or control ( n =158). Both groups had a median of five prior regimens. In the control group, 95% of patients received cyclophosphamide. Median OS was 10.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4–14.4) vs 10.0 months (95% CI 7.7–12.0) with carfilzomib vs control (hazard ratio=0.975; 95% CI 0.760–1.249; P =0.4172). Progression-free survival was similar between groups; overall response rate was higher with carfilzomib (19.1 vs 11.4%). The most common grade ⩾3 adverse events were anemia (25.5 vs 30.7%), thrombocytopenia (24.2 vs 22.2%) and neutropenia (7.6 vs 12.4%) with carfilzomib vs control. Median OS for single-agent carfilzomib was similar to that for an active doublet control regimen in heavily pretreated RRMM patients.

Abstract Rationale Stratification of asthma at the molecular level, especially using accessible biospecimens, could greatly enable patient selection for targeted therapy. Objectives To determine the value of blood analysis to identify transcriptional differences between clinically defined asthma and nonasthma groups, identify potential patient subgroups based on gene expression, and explore biological pathways associated with identified differences. Methods Transcriptomic profiles were generated by microarray analysis of blood from 610 patients with asthma and control participants in the U-BIOPRED (Unbiased Biomarkers in Prediction of Respiratory Disease Outcomes) study. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified by analysis of variance, including covariates for RNA quality, sex, and clinical site, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis was applied. Patient subgroups based on DEGs were created by hierarchical clustering and topological data analysis. Measurements and Main Results A total of 1,693 genes were differentially expressed between patients with severe asthma and participants without asthma. The differences from participants without asthma in the nonsmoking severe asthma and mild/moderate asthma subgroups were significantly related (r = 0.76), with a larger effect size in the severe asthma group. The majority of, but not all, differences were explained by differences in circulating immune cell populations. Pathway analysis showed an increase in chemotaxis, migration, and myeloid cell trafficking in patients with severe asthma, decreased B-lymphocyte development and hematopoietic progenitor cells, and lymphoid organ hypoplasia. Cluster analysis of DEGs led to the creation of subgroups among the patients with severe asthma who differed in molecular responses to oral corticosteroids. Conclusions Blood gene expression differences between clinically defined subgroups of patients with asthma and individuals without asthma, as well as subgroups of patients with severe asthma defined by transcript profiles, show the value of blood analysis in stratifying patients with asthma and identifying molecular pathways for further study. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01982162).

AbstractObjectiveTo determine if inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide are superior to placebo at decreasing respiratory symptoms in adult outpatients with covid-19.DesignRandomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.SettingThree Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia).Participants203 adults aged 18 years and older with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19, presenting with fever, cough, or dyspnoea.InterventionParticipants were randomised to receive either inhaled ciclesonide (600 μg twice daily) and intranasal ciclesonide (200 μg daily) or metered dose inhaler and nasal saline placebos for 14 days.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was symptom resolution at day 7. Analyses were conducted on the modified intention-to-treat population (participants who took at least one dose of study drug and completed one follow-up survey) and adjusted for stratified randomisation by sex.ResultsThe modified intention-to-treat population included 203 participants: 105 were randomly assigned to ciclesonide (excluding two dropouts and one loss to follow-up) and 98 to placebo (excluding three dropouts and six losses to follow-up). The median age was 35 years (interquartile range 27-47 years) and 54% were women. The proportion of participants with resolution of symptoms by day 7 did not differ significantly between the intervention group (42/105, 40%) and control group (34/98, 35%); absolute adjusted risk difference 5.5% (95% confidence interval −7.8% to 18.8%). Results might be limited to the population studied, which mainly included younger adults without comorbidities. The trial was stopped early, therefore could have been underpowered.ConclusionCompared with placebo, the combination of inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide did not show a statistically significant increase in resolution of symptoms among healthier young adults with covid-19 presenting with prominent respiratory symptoms. As evidence is insufficient to determine the benefit of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of covid-19, further research is needed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435795.

One course of antenatal corticosteroids reduces the risk of respiratory distress syndrome and neonatal death. Weekly doses given to women who remain undelivered after a single course may have benefits (less respiratory morbidity) or cause harm (reduced growth in utero). We aimed to find out whether multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids would reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality without adversely affecting fetal growth. 1858 women at 25–32 weeks' gestation who remained undelivered 14–21 days after an initial course of antenatal corticosteroids and continued to be at high risk of preterm birth were randomly assigned to multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids (n=937) or placebo (n=921), every 14 days until week 33 or delivery, whichever came first. The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal or neonatal mortality, severe respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage (grade III or IV), periventricular leucomalacia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or necrotising enterocolitis. Analysis was by intention to treat. All patients and caregivers were unaware of the treatment given. This trial is registered as number ISRCTN2654148. Infants exposed to multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids had similar morbidity and mortality to those exposed to placebo (150 [12·9%] vs 143 [12·5%]). Those receiving multiple doses of corticosteroids also weighed less at birth than those exposed to placebo (2216 g vs 2330 g, p=0·0026), were shorter (44·5 cm vs 45·4 cm, p<0·001), and had a smaller head circumference (31·1 cm vs 31·7 cm, p<0·001). Multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids, every 14 days, do not improve preterm-birth outcomes, and are associated with a decreased weight, length, and head circumference at birth. Therefore, this treatment schedule is not recommended. Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common childhood muscular dystrophy, is caused by dystrophin deficiency. Preclinical and phase 2 study data have suggested that givinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, might help to counteract the effects of this deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of givinostat in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 41 tertiary care sites in 11 countries. Eligible participants were ambulant, male, and aged at least 6 years, had a genetically confirmed diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, completed two four-stair climb assessments with a mean of 8 s or less (≤1 s variance), had a time-to-rise of at least 3 s but less than 10 s, and had received systemic corticosteroids for at least 6 months. Participating boys were randomly assigned (2:1, allocated according to a list generated by the interactive response technology provider) to receive either oral givinostat or matching placebo twice a day for 72 weeks, stratified by concomitant steroid use. Boys, investigators, and site and sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment. The dose was flexible, based on weight, and was reduced if not tolerated. Boys were divided into two groups on the basis of their baseline vastus lateralis fat fraction (VLFF; measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy): group A comprised boys with a VLFF of more than 5% but no more than 30%, whereas group B comprised boys with a VLFF of 5% or less, or more than 30%. The primary endpoint compared the effects of givinostat and placebo on the change in results of the four-stair climb assessment between baseline and 72 weeks, in the intention-to-treat, group A population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned boys who received at least one dose of study drug. When the first 50 boys in group A completed 12 months of treatment, an interim futility assessment was conducted, after which the sample size was adapted using masked data from the four-stair climb assessments. Furthermore, the starting dose of givinostat was reduced following a protocol amendment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02851797, and is complete. Between June 6, 2017, and Feb 22, 2022, 359 boys were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 179 were enrolled into the study (median age 9·8 years [IQR 8·1–11·0]), all of whom were randomly assigned (118 to receive givinostat and 61 to receive placebo); 170 (95%) boys completed the study. Of the 179 boys enrolled, 120 (67%) were in group A (81 givinostat and 39 placebo); of these, 114 (95%) completed the study. For participants in group A, comparing the results of the four-stair climb assessment at 72 weeks and baseline, the geometric least squares mean ratio was 1·27 (95% CI 1·17–1·37) for boys receiving givinostat and 1·48 (1·32–1·66) for those receiving placebo (ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·745–0·989; p=0·035). The most common adverse events in the givinostat group were diarrhoea (43 [36%] of 118 boys vs 11 [18%] of 61 receiving placebo) and vomiting (34 [29%] vs 8 [13%]); no treatment-related deaths occurred. Among ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, results of the four-stair climb assessment worsened in both groups over the study period; however, the decline was significantly smaller with givinostat than with placebo. The dose of givinostat was reduced after an interim safety analysis, but no new safety signals were reported. An ongoing extension study is evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of givinostat in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Italfarmaco.

Surgery and corticosteroid injections are established treatments for carpal tunnel syndrome, but the optimal treatment strategy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare starting treatment with surgery versus starting with a corticosteroid injection. We conducted an open-label, randomised controlled trial across 31 hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients, diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome for at least 6 weeks and confirmed by electrophysiological or sonographic testing, were randomly assigned (1:1) to start treatment with either surgery or an injection via a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by unilateral or bilateral symptoms, carpal tunnel syndrome with or without concomitant disease as risk factor, and previous ipsilateral injections. If needed, additional treatments were allowed, such as additional injections or surgery. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was the proportion of patients who were recovered (defined as a score of less than eight points on the six-item carpal tunnel syndrome scale) at 18 months. The trial was preregistered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN13164336) and is now completed. From Nov 7, 2017, to Nov 4, 2021, 934 participants (545 female and 389 male participants) were included. 468 were randomised to the surgery group and 466 to the injection group. At 18 months, 805 (86%) of 934 participants had primary outcome data. In the surgery group, 243 (61%) of 401 participants had recovered, significantly higher than the 180 (45%) of 404 participants recovered in the injection group (relative risk 1·36; 95% CI 1·19–1·56; p<0·0001). One or more adverse event occurred in 376 (86%) of 436 participants in the surgery group and in 384 (85%) of 453 participants in the injection group. One participant in the surgery group was hospitalised due to complications. No treatment-related deaths were reported. In patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, initiating treatment with surgery offers a higher chance of recovery after 18 months compared with starting with a corticosteroid injection, even with the possibility of additional interventions. The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Zorgverzekeraars Nederland.

Stepwise intensification of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is routine for severe eosinophilic asthma, despite some poor responses to high-dose ICS. Dose reductions are recommended in patients responding to biologics, but little supporting safety evidence exists. SHAMAL was a phase 4, randomised, open-label, active-controlled study done at 22 study sites in four countries. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with severe eosinophilic asthma and a five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire score below 1·5 and who received at least three consecutive doses of benralizumab before screening. We randomly assigned patients (3:1) to taper their high-dose ICS to a medium-dose, low-dose, and as-needed dose (reduction group) or continue (reference group) their ICS–formoterol therapy for 32 weeks, followed by a 16-week maintenance period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reducing their ICS–formoterol dose by week 32. The primary outcome was assessed in the reduction group, and safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients receiving study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04159519. Between Nov 12, 2019, and Feb 16, 2023, we screened and enrolled in the run-in period 208 patients. We randomly assigned 168 (81%) to the reduction (n=125 [74%]) and reference arms (n=43 [26%]). Overall, 110 (92%) patients reduced their ICS–formoterol dose: 18 (15%) to medium-dose, 20 (17%) to low-dose, and 72 (61%) to as-needed only. In 113 (96%) patients, week-32 doses were maintained to week 48; 114 (91%) of patients in the reduction group had zero exacerbations during tapering. Rates of adverse events were similar between groups. 91 (73%) patients had adverse events in the reduction group and 35 (83%) in the reference group. 17 patients had serious adverse events in the study: 12 (10%) in the reduction group and five (12%) in the reference group. No deaths occurred during the study. These findings show that patients controlled on benralizumab can have meaningful reductions in ICS therapy while maintaining asthma control. AstraZeneca.

Benralizumab is a humanised, afucosylated, anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody that induces direct, rapid, and nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as add-on therapy for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and elevated blood eosinophil counts. In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (CALIMA) undertaken at 303 sites in 11 countries, we enrolled patients aged 12–75 years with severe asthma uncontrolled by medium-dosage to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β₂-agonists (ICS plus LABA) and a history of two or more exacerbations in the previous year. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 56 weeks of benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W; first three doses 4 weeks apart), or placebo (all subcutaneous injection). Patients were stratified (2:1) by baseline blood eosinophil counts 300 cells per μL or greater and less than 300 cells per μL, respectively. Patients and study centre staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was annual exacerbation rate ratio versus placebo for patients receiving high-dosage ICS plus LABA with baseline blood eosinophils 300 cells per μL or greater (intention-to-treat analysis). Key secondary endpoints were pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and total asthma symptom score. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01914757. Between Aug 21, 2013, and March 16, 2015, 2505 patients were enrolled, of whom 1306 patients were randomised; 425 patients were randomly assigned to and received benralizumab 30 mg Q4W, 441 to benralizumab 30 mg Q8W, and 440 to placebo. 728 patients were included in the primary analysis population. Benralizumab resulted in significantly lower annual exacerbation rates with the Q4W regimen (rate 0·60 [95% CI 0·48–0·74], rate ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·49–0·85], p=0·0018, n=241) and Q8W regimen (rate 0·66 [95% CI 0·54–0·82], rate ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·54–0·95], p=0·0188, n=239) compared with placebo (rate 0·93 [95% CI 0·77–1·12], n=248). Benralizumab also significantly improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (Q4W and Q8W) and total asthma symptom score (Q8W only) in these patients. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (90 [21%] in the Q4W group, 79 [18%] in the Q8W group, and 92 [21%] in the placebo group) and worsening asthma (61 [14%] in the Q4W group, 47 [11%] in the Q8W group, and 68 [15%] in the group). Benralizumab significantly reduced annual exacerbation rates and was generally well tolerated for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with blood eosinophils 300 cells per μL or greater. Our data further refine the patient population likely to receive the greatest benefit from benralizumab treatment. AstraZeneca and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.

Abstract Rationale Post hoc analyses suggest that blood eosinophils have potential as a predictive biomarker of inhaled corticosteroid efficacy in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives We prospectively investigated the value of blood eosinophils as a predictor of responsiveness to an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination versus a long-acting β2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination for exacerbation prevention. Methods We conducted prespecified analyses of data from the FLAME (Effect of Indacaterol Glycopyronium vs Fluticasone Salmeterol on COPD Exacerbations) study, which compared once-daily long-acting β2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 μg with twice-daily long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid salmeterol/fluticasone combination 50/500 μg in patients with one or more exacerbations in the preceding year. Subsequent post hoc analyses were conducted to address further cutoffs and endpoints. Measurements and Main Results We compared treatment efficacy according to blood eosinophil percentage (<2% and ≥2%, <3% and ≥3%, and <5% and ≥5%) and absolute blood eosinophil count (<150 cells/μl, 150 to <300 cells/μl, and ≥300 cells/μl). Indacaterol/glycopyrronium was significantly superior to salmeterol/fluticasone for the prevention of exacerbations (all severities, or moderate or severe) in the <2%, ≥2%, <3%, <5%, and <150 cells/μl subgroups, and at no cutoff was salmeterol/fluticasone superior to indacaterol/glycopyrronium. Furthermore, the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations did not increase with increasing blood eosinophils. The incidence of pneumonia was higher in patients receiving salmeterol/fluticasone than indacaterol/glycopyrronium in both the <2% and ≥2% subgroups. Conclusions Our prospective analyses indicate that indacaterol/glycopyrronium provides superior or similar benefits over salmeterol/fluticasone regardless of blood eosinophil levels in patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782326).