-
The New England Journal of Medicine May 2023Upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is under investigation for the treatment of Crohn's disease. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is under investigation for the treatment of Crohn's disease.
METHODS
In two phase 3 induction trials (U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED), we randomly assigned patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease to receive 45 mg of upadacitinib or placebo (2:1 ratio) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients who had a clinical response to upadacitinib induction therapy were randomly assigned in the U-ENDURE maintenance trial to receive 15 mg of upadacitinib, 30 mg of upadacitinib, or placebo (1:1:1 ratio) once daily for 52 weeks. The primary end points for induction (week 12) and maintenance (week 52) were clinical remission (defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score of <150 [range, 0 to 600, with higher scores indicating more severe disease activity]) and endoscopic response (defined as a decrease in the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD; range, 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating more severe disease] of >50% from baseline of the induction trial [or for patients with an SES-CD of 4 at baseline, a decrease of ≥2 points from baseline]).
RESULTS
A total of 526 patients underwent randomization in U-EXCEL, 495 in U-EXCEED, and 502 in U-ENDURE. A significantly higher percentage of patients who received 45-mg upadacitinib than those who received placebo had clinical remission (in U-EXCEL, 49.5% vs. 29.1%; in U-EXCEED, 38.9% vs. 21.1%) and an endoscopic response (in U-EXCEL, 45.5% vs. 13.1%; in U-EXCEED, 34.6% vs. 3.5%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). At week 52 in U-ENDURE, a higher percentage of patients had clinical remission with 15-mg upadacitinib (37.3%) or 30-mg upadacitinib (47.6%) than with placebo (15.1%), and a higher percentage had an endoscopic response with 15-mg upadacitinib (27.6%) or 30-mg upadacitinib (40.1%) than with placebo (7.3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Herpes zoster infections occurred more frequently in the 45-mg and 30-mg upadacitinib groups than in the respective placebo groups, and hepatic disorders and neutropenia were more frequent in the 30-mg upadacitinib group than in the other maintenance groups. Gastrointestinal perforations developed in 4 patients who received 45-mg upadacitinib and in 1 patient each who received 30-mg or 15-mg upadacitinib.
CONCLUSIONS
Upadacitinib induction and maintenance treatment was superior to placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. (Funded by AbbVie; U-EXCEL, U-EXCEED, and U-ENDURE ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03345849, NCT03345836, and NCT03345823.).
Topics: Humans; Crohn Disease; Herpes Zoster; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Neutropenia; Induction Chemotherapy; Maintenance Chemotherapy
PubMed: 37224198
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212728 -
Saudi Medical Journal Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an atopic disease in which eosinophils infiltrate the esophageal mucosa and may result in a variety of upper gastrointestinal symptoms.... (Review)
Review
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an atopic disease in which eosinophils infiltrate the esophageal mucosa and may result in a variety of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Chief among these are dysphagia, heartburn, and food bolus obstruction in adults whereas children often present with abdominal pain or vomiting. Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic condition that if not detected and left untreated could lead to the development of subepithelial fibrosis and esophageal stenosis. The diagnosis of EoE is confirmed in a patient presenting with characteristic EoE symptoms, classic signs on endoscopy, and biopsy results showing >15 eosinophils/hpf. A number of useful treatments against EoE are currently available with new therapeutics on the horizon. The former include PPIs, topical steroids, and elimination diet; the latter comprise novel biologics including the monoclonal antibody dupilumab. All these treatments can improve symptoms and reduce esophageal eosinophil count. This brief introductory review describes the detection, diagnosis, and management of EoE.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Deglutition Disorders; Endoscopy
PubMed: 37463709
DOI: 10.15537/smj.2023.44.7.20220812 -
Development of a Practical Guide to Implement and Monitor Diet Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jul 2023Dietary therapy for short- and long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis is an effective yet poorly understood and underutilized treatment strategy. Despite... (Review)
Review
Dietary therapy for short- and long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis is an effective yet poorly understood and underutilized treatment strategy. Despite several prospective trials demonstrating the efficacy of dietary therapies, successful clinical implementation is hampered by the need for a multidisciplinary approach including dietitian support and provider expertise. The availability of these resources is not readily available to most gastroenterologists. Without standardized guidance on starting or completing the diet for gastrointestinal providers and/or consulting dietitians, provider attitudes toward dietary therapy vary greatly depending on familiarity and knowledge gaps in using diet therapy. This review aims to summarize evidence in support of dietary therapy in eosinophilic esophagitis while providing guidance on initiation and implementation of dietary therapy for providers.
Topics: Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Humans; Elimination Diets; Allergens; Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 36933603
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.006 -
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2023Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are an emerging group of pathological entities characterized by an eosinophil-predominant infiltration of different tracts... (Review)
Review
Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are an emerging group of pathological entities characterized by an eosinophil-predominant infiltration of different tracts of the gut in the absence of secondary causes of eosinophilia. According to the specific tract of the gut involved, EGIDs can be classified into eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and eosinophilic colitis (EoC). The epidemiology of EGIDs is evolving rapidly. EoE, once considered a rare disease, now has an incidence and prevalence of 7.7 new cases per 100,000 inhabitants per years and 34.4 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year, respectively. Fewer data are available regarding non-EoE EGIDs, whose prevalence are estimated to range between 2.1 and 17.6 in 100,000 individuals, depending on age, sex, and ethnicity. Diagnosis requires the presence of suggestive symptoms, endoscopic biopsies showing abnormal values of eosinophils infiltrating the gut, and exclusion of secondary causes of eosinophilia. EoE typically presents with dysphagia and episodes of food bolus impactions, while EoG, EoN, and EoC may all present with abdominal pain and diarrhea, with or without other non-specific symptoms. In addition, although different EGIDs are currently classified as different entities, there may be overlap between different diseases in the same patient. Despite EGIDs being relatively novel pathological entities, the research on possible treatments is rapidly growing. In this regard, several randomized controlled trials are currently ongoing to investigate novel molecules, including ad-hoc steroid formulations, immunosuppressants, and mostly monoclonal antibodies that target the specific molecular mediators of EGIDs. This narrative review provides an up-to-date overview of available and investigational drugs for different EGIDs.
Topics: Humans; Gastritis; Enteritis; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Eosinophils
PubMed: 37894846
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242015165 -
Lancet (London, England) Jan 2024Stepwise intensification of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is routine for severe eosinophilic asthma, despite some poor responses to high-dose ICS. Dose reductions are... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Reduction of daily maintenance inhaled corticosteroids in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab (SHAMAL): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.
BACKGROUND
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.
METHODS
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.
FINDINGS
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, reductions 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.
INTERPRETATION
These findings show that patients controlled on benralizumab can have meaningful reductions in ICS therapy while maintaining asthma control.
FUNDING
AstraZeneca.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Formoterol Fumarate; Pulmonary Eosinophilia
PubMed: 38071986
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02284-5 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jul 2023Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying...
BACKGROUND
Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying eosinophil levels, previous biologic use, and extended follow-up in the United States are limited.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness of benralizumab in different asthmatic patient cohorts and its long-term clinical impact.
METHODS
Patients with asthma treated with benralizumab from November 2017 to June 2019 with 2 or more exacerbations in the 12 months before benralizumab initiation (index) were included in this pre-post cohort study that used medical, laboratory, and pharmacy US insurance claims. Asthma exacerbation rates in the 12 months pre and post index were compared. Nonmutually exclusive patient cohorts were defined by blood eosinophil counts (<150, ≥150, 150-<300, <300, and ≥300 cells/μL), a switch from another biologic, or follow-up for 18 or 24 months post index.
RESULTS
There were 429 patients in the eosinophil cohort, 349 in the biologic-experienced cohort, and 419 in the extended follow-up cohort. In all eosinophil cohort subgroups, the asthma exacerbation rate decreased from 3.10-3.55 per patient-year (PPY) pre index to 1.11-1.72 PPY post index (52%-64% decrease; P < .001). Similar decreases were observed in patients switching from omalizumab (3.25 to 1.25 PPY [62%]) or mepolizumab (3.81 to 1.78 PPY [53%]) to benralizumab and those followed up for 18 months (3.38 to 1.18 PPY [65%]) or 24 months (3.38 to 1.08 PPY [68%]) (all P < .001). In the extended follow-up cohort, 39% and 49% had no exacerbations in the 0 to 12 months and the 12 to 24 months post index, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Benralizumab achieved significantly improved asthma control in real-world patients with different blood eosinophil counts, including eosinophil counts ranging from less than 150 to greater than or equal to 300 cells/μL, switching from other biologics, or treated for up to 24 months.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Cohort Studies; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Asthma; Eosinophils; Pulmonary Eosinophilia
PubMed: 37146880
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.04.029 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37470293
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004065.pub4 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2023Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) are rare systemic inflammatory disorders with overlapping symptoms, elevated... (Review)
Review
Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) are rare systemic inflammatory disorders with overlapping symptoms, elevated eosinophil counts, and heterogenous clinical presentations. Although progress has been made in recent years, there are substantial gaps in our understanding of the pathologic mechanisms involved in these diseases, as well as numerous unmet needs relating to both diagnosis and patient management. For example, in most cases of HES, the underlying cause of hypereosinophilia is unknown, while in EGPA, although a polygenic genetic susceptibility has been found, understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms remains largely elusive. Delineating differences between certain disease variants may be challenging, and there are no reliable predictive markers of disease course. In addition, the current diagnostic criteria for HES and classification criteria for EGPA are not easy to implement in a nonspecialist setting, and specialist referral pathways need to be signposted more clearly. Furthermore, disease-specific activity scores need to be developed to aid the assessment of treatment effects, and improved biomarkers are needed to aid with treatment stratification. In this review, we outline the limitations of our current understanding of HES and EGPA and highlight areas for future work, which ultimately should help improve patient management and outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis; Churg-Strauss Syndrome; Evidence Gaps; Biomarkers; Hypereosinophilic Syndrome
PubMed: 37086239
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.03.011 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023The gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in influencing various health outcomes, including immune-mediated conditions. Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (GPA) is one such...
BACKGROUND
The gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in influencing various health outcomes, including immune-mediated conditions. Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (GPA) is one such condition, and its potential associations with gut microbiota remain underexplored.
METHOD
Using a two-sample Mendelian randomization approach, we investigated the causal links between gut microbiota and GPA. We sourced our data from multiple cohorts and consortiums, including the MiBioGen consortium. Our study design incorporated both direct associations and mediation effects of immune traits on the relationship between gut microbiota and GPA.
RESULTS
Our analysis revealed significant associations between 1 phylum, 1 family 9 genus microbiota taxa and GPA. Furthermore, we identified several immune cell traits that mediated the effects of gut microbiota on GPA. For instance, the family Defluviitaleaceae and genus Defluviitaleaceae UCG011 influenced GPA through CD11c in granulocytes. The mediation effect proportions further elucidated the complex dynamics between gut microbiota exposures, immune markers, and their combined influence on GPA.
CONCLUSION
Our findings underscore the intricate relationship between gut microbiota, immune markers, and GPA. The identified associations and mediation effects provide valuable insights into the potential therapeutic avenues targeting gut microbiota to manage GPA.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis; Mendelian Randomization Analysis; Leukocyte Disorders; Biomarkers
PubMed: 38090556
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1296016 -
Blood Advances Sep 2023Darinaparsin is a novel organic arsenical compound of dimethylated arsenic conjugated to glutathione, with antitumor activity and a mechanism of action markedly...
Darinaparsin is a novel organic arsenical compound of dimethylated arsenic conjugated to glutathione, with antitumor activity and a mechanism of action markedly different from other available agents. This phase 2, nonrandomized, single-arm, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous darinaparsin (300 mg/m2 over 1 hour, once daily for 5 consecutive days, per 21-day cycle) and its pharmacokinetics at multiple doses in 65 Asian patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). The ORR based on central assessment was 19.3% (90% confidence interval, 11.2-29.9), which was significantly higher than the predefined threshold of 10% (P = .024). The ORR was 16.2% in patients with PTCL-not otherwise specified and 29.4% in patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma. Tumor size decreased in 62.3% of patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were observed in 98.5% of patients. Grade ≥3 TEAEs with an incidence rate of ≥5% included anemia (15.4%), thrombocytopenia (13.8%), neutropenia (12.3%), leukopenia (9.2%), lymphopenia (9.2%), and hypertension (6.2%). Darinaparsin is effective and well tolerated, with TEAEs that were clinically acceptable and manageable with symptomatic treatment and dose reductions. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02653976.
Topics: Humans; Lymphoma, T-Cell, Peripheral; Arsenicals; Glutathione; Neutropenia
PubMed: 36661315
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022008615