Efficacy of icatibant treatment in patients with hereditary angio-oedema type I resistant to treatment with C1 inhibitor concentrate (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Immunopharmacology
Conestat alpha, a C1-inhibitor produced by recombinant technology (rhC1-INH) is an acute treatment for edematous attacks occurring in hereditary angioedema (HAE) with C1-inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE). Our study evaluated the efficacy and safety of rhC1-INH administered during HAE attacks, and for short-term prophylaxis (STP). Materials & method: Our prospective study analyzed the course of 544 HAE attacks experienced by the 21 C1-INH-HAE patients treated, as well as the outcome of 97 instances of STP implemented with rhC1-INH. Using a purpose-designed questionnaire, the patients recorded relevant, treatment-related information. Results: Time to the administration of rhC1-INH was 90.0 min (median) after the onset of HAE attacks. The symptoms started to improve as early as 60 min after the injection of rhC1-INH, and the attack resolved 730.0 min after treatment. The interval between the onset of the HAE attack and the administration of rhC1-INH correlated with time until the onset of improvement (R = 0.2053 p < 0.0001), and with time to the complete resolution of symptoms (R = 0.2805, p < 0.0001). Nine patients received STP with rhC1-INH in 97 instances. STP successfully prevented the HAE attack within 72 h of the event on 93/97 occasions. No local and serious systemic adverse events/effects were observed. Conclusions: Treatment with rhC1-INH is effective and safe both for acute management, and for STP. Following the onset of an HAE attack, early administration of rhC1-INH may reduce time to the improvement and to the complete resolution of symptoms. Repeated administration of rhC1-INH does not impair its efficacy.
Iranian Journal of Immunology, 2020
Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic potentially lifethreatening disease characterized by episodic non-pruritic subcutaneous and submucosal edema attacks in different parts of the body. Objective: To assess the status of Romanian HAE patients after the recent introduction of a new therapy through a nationwide program. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included patients from the Romanian HAE Registry. Results: The study included 84 patients with HAE type I (91.7%) and type II (8.3%). The mean delay in diagnosis was 2.4 years in children and 16.7 years in adults (p=0.019). Stress and tiredness were the most frequent trigger factors. The majority of the HAE episodes involved subcutaneous (89.3%), abdominal (77.4%), genital (51.2%), facial (41.7%), and laryngeal (39.3%) symptoms during the preceding 12 months. One or several misdiagnoses were reported in 83.33% patients and 44.1 % of the patients were subjected to or proposed unnecessary surgery during abdominal episodes. Plasma-derived C1-INH (pdC1-INH) and recombinant C1-INH (rhC1-INH) were respectively used in 10 (11.9%) and 13 (15.5%) of the HAE patients for life-threatening attacks over the past 12 months. Fortythree (51.19%) patients practiced home treatment with subcutaneous injection of the bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist for acute HAE attacks. Conclusion: The significantly lower delay observed in children suggests an improvement in the awareness of C1-INH-HAE among physicians in recent years. The management of HAE in Romania has been somewhat enhanced as the majority of HAE patients have recently gained access to pdC1-INH, rhC1-INH, and bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist.
Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2012
Hereditary angioedema (HAE) owing to C1 inhibitor deficiency is an autosomal dominant disorder, characterized by recurrent, potentially life-threatening, localized attacks of tissue swelling. Current treatment involves the infusion of C1 inhibitor protein (C1-INH) isolated from human plasma. This open-label extension to a European, Israeli and Argentinean randomized study (NCT00262301) aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human C1 inhibitor (rhC1-INH) as a first-line treatment following an HAE attack, together with its effect on subsequent attacks. An HAE-specific visual analogue scale (VAS) 0-100 mm was used by patients to assess the severity of attack at four anatomical locations. Patients were treated with one, single-vial, fixed-dose of rhC1-INH (2100 U), followed by up to two further vials at the investigators discretion. The primary end-point was the time from first rhC1-INH injection to first onset of relief of symptoms (≥ 20 mm decrease on VAS). Response to treatment was defined as the onset of relief within 4 h. A total of 57 patients were treated for 194 HAE attacks. Overall, sustained relief of symptoms was achieved in 87% of rhC1-INH-treated patients within 4 h of treatment, with 57% of attacks requiring only one vial of rhC1-INH. When categorized by successive attacks experienced by individual patients, the response rate to rhC1-INH treatment was 96%, 83%, 87%, 80% and 80% for attacks 1-5 respectively. Treatment with rhC1-INH was well tolerated, with no discontinuations owing to treatment-emergent adverse events and no adverse events relating to immunogenicity. Treatment with rhC1-INH provides fast-onset relief for an HAE attack, with a high rate of therapeutic response maintained throughout subsequent attacks.
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 2019
Introduction: For prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks, replacement therapy with human C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) treatment is approved and available as intravenous [C1-INH(IV)] (Cinryze ®) and subcutaneous [C1-INH(SC)] HAEGARDA ® preparations. In the absence of a head-to-head comparative study of the two treatment modalities, an indirect comparison of data from 2 independent but similar clinical trials was undertaken. Methods: Two similar randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies were identified which evaluated either C1-INH(SC) (COMPACT; NCT01912456; 16 weeks) or C1-INH(IV) (CHANGE; NCT01005888; 14 weeks) vs. placebo (on-demand treatment only) for routine prevention of HAE attacks. Individual patient data from each trial were used to conduct an indirect comparison of treatment effects. Attack reductions (absolute and percent of mean/median number of monthly HAE attacks reduction over placebo) were compared between the two C1-INH formulations at approved/recommended doses: C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg twice weekly (n = 45) and 1000 U of C1-INH(IV) twice weekly (n = 22). Point estimates were adjusted using mixed and quantile regression models that controlled for study design. Results: The absolute mean monthly numbers of HAE attack reductions were 3.6 (95% CI 2.9, 4.2) for C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg vs. placebo and 2.3 (1.4, 3.3) for C1-INH(IV) vs. placebo; between-product difference, 1.3 (0.1, 2.4; P = 0.034). The mean percent reduction in monthly attack rate was significantly greater with C1-INH(SC) as compared with C1-INH(IV) (84% vs. 51%; P < 0.001). The percentages of subjects experiencing ≥ 50%, ≥ 70%, and ≥ 90% reductions in monthly HAE attack rates versus placebo were significantly higher with C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg as compared to C1-INH(IV) 1000 U (≥ 50% reduction: 91% vs. 50%, odds ratio [OR] = 10.33, P = 0.003; ≥ 70% reduction: 84% vs. 46%, OR = 6.19, P = 0.005; ≥ 90% reduction: 57% vs. 18%, OR = 6.04, P = 0.007). Conclusion: Within the limitations of an indirect study comparison, this analysis suggests greater attack reduction with twice-weekly C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg as compared to twice-weekly C1-INH(IV) 1000 U for the routine prevention of HAE attacks.
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 2016
Background: Limited data are available regarding C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) administration and antieC1-INH antibodies. Objective: To assess the incidence of antibody formation during treatment with pasteurized, nanofiltered plasma-derived C1-INH (pnfC1-INH) in patients with hereditary angioedema with C1-INH deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) and the comparative efficacy of pnfC1-INH in patients with and without antibodies. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label study, patients with C1-INH-HAE (!12 years of age) were given 20 IU/kg of pnfC1-INH per HAE attack that required treatment and followed up for 9 months. Blood samples were taken at baseline (day of first attack) and months 3, 6, and 9 and analyzed for inhibitory antieC1-INH antibody (iC1-INH-Ab) and noninhibitory antieC1-INH antibodies (niC1-INH-Abs). Results: The study included 46 patients (69.6% female; mean age, 38.9 years; all white) who received 221 on-site pnfC1-INH infusions; most patients received 6 or fewer infusions. No patient tested positive (titer !1:50) for iC1-INH-Ab at any time during the study. Thirteen patients (28.2%) had detectable niC1-INH-Abs in 1 or more samples. Nine patients (19.6%) had detectable niC1-INH-Abs at baseline; 3 of these had no detectable antibodies after baseline. Of 10 patients (21.7%) with 1 or more detectable result for niC1-INH-Abs after baseline, 6 had detectable niC1-INH-Abs at baseline. Mean times to symptom relief onset and complete symptom resolution per patient were similar for those with or without antieniC1-INH-Abs. Conclusion: Administration of pnfC1-INH was not associated with iC1-INH-Ab formation in this population. Noninhibitory antibodies were detected in some patients but fluctuated during the study independently of pnfC1-INH administration and appeared to have no effect on pnfC1-INH efficacy. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467947.