Rare Diseases

Lipoid proteinosis, or Urbach-Wiethe disease, is a rare autosomal recessive genodermatosis with a global prevalence of less than 500 reported cases, with an equal distribution across genders and ethnicities.¹ It is caused by mutations in the ECM1 gene² on chromosome 1q21. This leads to the abnormal deposition of hyaline material in various tissues across different organ systems, with the classic manifestations known as the “string of pearls” sign and a hoarse cry or voice.

The rarity of lipoid proteinosis often leads to challenges in diagnosis. Particularly when deviating from the common association with consanguinity, the potential for de novo mutations or a broader genetic variability in disease expression is highlighted. Our patient presents with symptoms that are pathognomonic to LP with moniliform blepharosis and hoarseness of the voice, in addition to scarring of the extremities. 

Other common clinical manifestations in patients with LP include cobblestoning of the mucosa; hyperkeratosis of the elbows, knees, and hands; and calcification of the amygdala with neuroimaging.³

Genetic testing that identifies a loss-of-function mutation in ECM1 offers diagnostic confirmation. Patients often need multidisciplinary care involving dermatology; ear, nose, throat; neurology; and genetics. Treatment of LP is mostly symptomatic with unsatisfactory resolution of cutaneous changes, with retinoids such as acitretin used as the first-line option and surgery as a consideration for laryngeal hyaline deposits.² Although LP can affect different organ systems, patients tend to have a normal lifespan.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Mcgrath JA. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015:132:317-22. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62702-5.00023-8.

2. Hamada Tet al. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Apr 1;11(7):833-40. doi: 10.1093/hmg/11.7.833.

3. Frenkel B et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Sep;21(7):2245-51 doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-2017-7.

Lipoid proteinosis, or Urbach-Wiethe disease, is a rare autosomal recessive genodermatosis with a global prevalence of less than 500 reported cases, with an equal distribution across genders and ethnicities.¹ It is caused by mutations in the ECM1 gene² on chromosome 1q21. This leads to the abnormal deposition of hyaline material in various tissues across different organ systems, with the classic manifestations known as the “string of pearls” sign and a hoarse cry or voice.

The rarity of lipoid proteinosis often leads to challenges in diagnosis. Particularly when deviating from the common association with consanguinity, the potential for de novo mutations or a broader genetic variability in disease expression is highlighted. Our patient presents with symptoms that are pathognomonic to LP with moniliform blepharosis and hoarseness of the voice, in addition to scarring of the extremities. 

Other common clinical manifestations in patients with LP include cobblestoning of the mucosa; hyperkeratosis of the elbows, knees, and hands; and calcification of the amygdala with neuroimaging.³

Genetic testing that identifies a loss-of-function mutation in ECM1 offers diagnostic confirmation. Patients often need multidisciplinary care involving dermatology; ear, nose, throat; neurology; and genetics. Treatment of LP is mostly symptomatic with unsatisfactory resolution of cutaneous changes, with retinoids such as acitretin used as the first-line option and surgery as a consideration for laryngeal hyaline deposits.² Although LP can affect different organ systems, patients tend to have a normal lifespan.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Mcgrath JA. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015:132:317-22. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62702-5.00023-8.

2. Hamada Tet al. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Apr 1;11(7):833-40. doi: 10.1093/hmg/11.7.833.

3. Frenkel B et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Sep;21(7):2245-51 doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-2017-7.

Lipoid proteinosis, or Urbach-Wiethe disease, is a rare autosomal recessive genodermatosis with a global prevalence of less than 500 reported cases, with an equal distribution across genders and ethnicities.¹ It is caused by mutations in the ECM1 gene² on chromosome 1q21. This leads to the abnormal deposition of hyaline material in various tissues across different organ systems, with the classic manifestations known as the “string of pearls” sign and a hoarse cry or voice.

The rarity of lipoid proteinosis often leads to challenges in diagnosis. Particularly when deviating from the common association with consanguinity, the potential for de novo mutations or a broader genetic variability in disease expression is highlighted. Our patient presents with symptoms that are pathognomonic to LP with moniliform blepharosis and hoarseness of the voice, in addition to scarring of the extremities. 

Other common clinical manifestations in patients with LP include cobblestoning of the mucosa; hyperkeratosis of the elbows, knees, and hands; and calcification of the amygdala with neuroimaging.³

Genetic testing that identifies a loss-of-function mutation in ECM1 offers diagnostic confirmation. Patients often need multidisciplinary care involving dermatology; ear, nose, throat; neurology; and genetics. Treatment of LP is mostly symptomatic with unsatisfactory resolution of cutaneous changes, with retinoids such as acitretin used as the first-line option and surgery as a consideration for laryngeal hyaline deposits.² Although LP can affect different organ systems, patients tend to have a normal lifespan.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Mcgrath JA. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015:132:317-22. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62702-5.00023-8.

2. Hamada Tet al. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Apr 1;11(7):833-40. doi: 10.1093/hmg/11.7.833.

3. Frenkel B et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Sep;21(7):2245-51 doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-2017-7.

Temporal artery ultrasound alone was sufficient to accurately diagnose giant cell arteritis (GCA) in over half of patients in a new prospective study.

The findings provide further evidence that “[ultrasound] of temporal arteries could really take the place of traditional temporal artery biopsy (TAB)” in patients with high clinical suspicion of GCA, lead author Guillaume Denis, MD, of the Centre Hospitalier de Rochefort in Rochefort, France, told this news organization.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) already recommends ultrasound as a first-line diagnostic tool for patients with suspected large vessel vasculitis, and the 2022 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/EULAR classification criteria for GCA weighs positive TAB or temporal artery halo sign on ultrasound equally.

Dmytro Zinkevych | Dreamstime

Methodology

In the study, researchers recruited 165 individuals with high clinical suspicion of GCA from August 2016 through February 2020 at six French hospitals. Only patients older than 50 years of age and with biologic inflammatory syndrome with C-reactive protein elevation (≥ 6 mg/L) qualified for the study. Patients also needed to have at least one of these factors:

• Clinical signs of GCA (abnormal temporal arteries, scalp hyperesthesia, jaw claudication, or vision loss)
• General signs of GCA (headache, fever, or impaired general condition)
• Large-vessel vasculitis visible on imaging (CT angiography [CTA], MR angiography [MRA], and/or PET/CT)

All participants underwent a color Doppler ultrasound of the temporal artery, performed less than 1 week after the initiation of corticosteroid therapy. (Previous research demonstrated that corticosteroids can change the hallmark halo sign of vasculitis detectable via ultrasound as early as 1 week after initiation of therapy, the authors noted.) In this study, the time between consultation with a specialist and ultrasound was less than 1 day.

“Patients with halo signs detected around the lumen of both temporal arteries (that is, bilateral temporal halo sign) were considered as ultrasound-positive,” Guillaume Denis, MD, and colleagues explained. “Patients with no halo sign, or bilateral halo signs in the axillary arteries, or a unilateral halo sign in the temporal artery were considered as ultrasound-negative.”

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 7.
 

Results

In total, 73 participants (44%) had positive ultrasounds and were diagnosed with GCA. These patients also underwent a second ultrasound a month later to document if the halo sign remained unchanged, reduced, or disappeared.

The remaining 92 patients with negative ultrasound results underwent TAB, which was conducted on average 4.5 days after the ultrasound. A total of 28 patients (30%) had a positive TAB result. Physicians diagnosed 35 TAB-negative patients with GCA using clinical, imaging, and biologic data, and 29 patients received alternative diagnoses. These other diagnoses included polymyalgia rheumatica, infectious diseases, cancer, and other systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

All patients diagnosed with GCA via ultrasound had their diagnoses reconfirmed at 1 month and for up to 2 years of follow-up.

“In summary, our study showed that the use of temporal artery ultrasound may be an efficient way to make the diagnosis of GCA in patients with high clinical suspicion and to reduce imaging costs and the need for biopsy, thereby limiting complications and the need for a surgeon,” the authors concluded.
 

Qualifications and Limitations

While over half of patients ultimately diagnosed with GCA were diagnosed using ultrasound, that percentage was “a bit lower than expected,” said Mark Matza, MD, MBA, the co-clinical director of rheumatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. By comparison, one systematic review calculated ultrasound’s pooled sensitivity at 88% and pooled specificity at 96% for the diagnosis of GCA.

“In this [current] study, 30% of patients who had negative ultrasound were then found to have positive biopsy, indicating that ultrasound missed a substantial portion of patients who were ultimately diagnosed with GCA,” he continued.

Ultrasound is “very operator dependent,” he added, and there has been “variability in test performance of ultrasound.”

The authors acknowledged that techniques for ultrasound of the temporal arteries have also evolved over the study period, and thus, findings may not have been consistent.

However, about one in four patients with GCA were diagnosed after having both negative ultrasound and TAB results.

“One of the things that this paper shows is that even the gold standard of temporal artery biopsy isn’t 100% either,” noted Minna Kohler, MD, who directs the rheumatology musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital. “That’s why clinically, there is an increasing emphasis on using multimodality imaging to assist in the diagnosis of GCA along with a physician’s clinical intuition,” she said.

Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Temporal artery ultrasound alone was sufficient to accurately diagnose giant cell arteritis (GCA) in over half of patients in a new prospective study.

The findings provide further evidence that “[ultrasound] of temporal arteries could really take the place of traditional temporal artery biopsy (TAB)” in patients with high clinical suspicion of GCA, lead author Guillaume Denis, MD, of the Centre Hospitalier de Rochefort in Rochefort, France, told this news organization.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) already recommends ultrasound as a first-line diagnostic tool for patients with suspected large vessel vasculitis, and the 2022 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/EULAR classification criteria for GCA weighs positive TAB or temporal artery halo sign on ultrasound equally.

Dmytro Zinkevych | Dreamstime

Methodology

In the study, researchers recruited 165 individuals with high clinical suspicion of GCA from August 2016 through February 2020 at six French hospitals. Only patients older than 50 years of age and with biologic inflammatory syndrome with C-reactive protein elevation (≥ 6 mg/L) qualified for the study. Patients also needed to have at least one of these factors:

• Clinical signs of GCA (abnormal temporal arteries, scalp hyperesthesia, jaw claudication, or vision loss)
• General signs of GCA (headache, fever, or impaired general condition)
• Large-vessel vasculitis visible on imaging (CT angiography [CTA], MR angiography [MRA], and/or PET/CT)

All participants underwent a color Doppler ultrasound of the temporal artery, performed less than 1 week after the initiation of corticosteroid therapy. (Previous research demonstrated that corticosteroids can change the hallmark halo sign of vasculitis detectable via ultrasound as early as 1 week after initiation of therapy, the authors noted.) In this study, the time between consultation with a specialist and ultrasound was less than 1 day.

“Patients with halo signs detected around the lumen of both temporal arteries (that is, bilateral temporal halo sign) were considered as ultrasound-positive,” Guillaume Denis, MD, and colleagues explained. “Patients with no halo sign, or bilateral halo signs in the axillary arteries, or a unilateral halo sign in the temporal artery were considered as ultrasound-negative.”

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 7.
 

Results

In total, 73 participants (44%) had positive ultrasounds and were diagnosed with GCA. These patients also underwent a second ultrasound a month later to document if the halo sign remained unchanged, reduced, or disappeared.

The remaining 92 patients with negative ultrasound results underwent TAB, which was conducted on average 4.5 days after the ultrasound. A total of 28 patients (30%) had a positive TAB result. Physicians diagnosed 35 TAB-negative patients with GCA using clinical, imaging, and biologic data, and 29 patients received alternative diagnoses. These other diagnoses included polymyalgia rheumatica, infectious diseases, cancer, and other systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

All patients diagnosed with GCA via ultrasound had their diagnoses reconfirmed at 1 month and for up to 2 years of follow-up.

“In summary, our study showed that the use of temporal artery ultrasound may be an efficient way to make the diagnosis of GCA in patients with high clinical suspicion and to reduce imaging costs and the need for biopsy, thereby limiting complications and the need for a surgeon,” the authors concluded.
 

Qualifications and Limitations

While over half of patients ultimately diagnosed with GCA were diagnosed using ultrasound, that percentage was “a bit lower than expected,” said Mark Matza, MD, MBA, the co-clinical director of rheumatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. By comparison, one systematic review calculated ultrasound’s pooled sensitivity at 88% and pooled specificity at 96% for the diagnosis of GCA.

“In this [current] study, 30% of patients who had negative ultrasound were then found to have positive biopsy, indicating that ultrasound missed a substantial portion of patients who were ultimately diagnosed with GCA,” he continued.

Ultrasound is “very operator dependent,” he added, and there has been “variability in test performance of ultrasound.”

The authors acknowledged that techniques for ultrasound of the temporal arteries have also evolved over the study period, and thus, findings may not have been consistent.

However, about one in four patients with GCA were diagnosed after having both negative ultrasound and TAB results.

“One of the things that this paper shows is that even the gold standard of temporal artery biopsy isn’t 100% either,” noted Minna Kohler, MD, who directs the rheumatology musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital. “That’s why clinically, there is an increasing emphasis on using multimodality imaging to assist in the diagnosis of GCA along with a physician’s clinical intuition,” she said.

Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Temporal artery ultrasound alone was sufficient to accurately diagnose giant cell arteritis (GCA) in over half of patients in a new prospective study.

The findings provide further evidence that “[ultrasound] of temporal arteries could really take the place of traditional temporal artery biopsy (TAB)” in patients with high clinical suspicion of GCA, lead author Guillaume Denis, MD, of the Centre Hospitalier de Rochefort in Rochefort, France, told this news organization.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) already recommends ultrasound as a first-line diagnostic tool for patients with suspected large vessel vasculitis, and the 2022 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/EULAR classification criteria for GCA weighs positive TAB or temporal artery halo sign on ultrasound equally.

Dmytro Zinkevych | Dreamstime

Methodology

In the study, researchers recruited 165 individuals with high clinical suspicion of GCA from August 2016 through February 2020 at six French hospitals. Only patients older than 50 years of age and with biologic inflammatory syndrome with C-reactive protein elevation (≥ 6 mg/L) qualified for the study. Patients also needed to have at least one of these factors:

• Clinical signs of GCA (abnormal temporal arteries, scalp hyperesthesia, jaw claudication, or vision loss)
• General signs of GCA (headache, fever, or impaired general condition)
• Large-vessel vasculitis visible on imaging (CT angiography [CTA], MR angiography [MRA], and/or PET/CT)

All participants underwent a color Doppler ultrasound of the temporal artery, performed less than 1 week after the initiation of corticosteroid therapy. (Previous research demonstrated that corticosteroids can change the hallmark halo sign of vasculitis detectable via ultrasound as early as 1 week after initiation of therapy, the authors noted.) In this study, the time between consultation with a specialist and ultrasound was less than 1 day.

“Patients with halo signs detected around the lumen of both temporal arteries (that is, bilateral temporal halo sign) were considered as ultrasound-positive,” Guillaume Denis, MD, and colleagues explained. “Patients with no halo sign, or bilateral halo signs in the axillary arteries, or a unilateral halo sign in the temporal artery were considered as ultrasound-negative.”

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 7.
 

Results

In total, 73 participants (44%) had positive ultrasounds and were diagnosed with GCA. These patients also underwent a second ultrasound a month later to document if the halo sign remained unchanged, reduced, or disappeared.

The remaining 92 patients with negative ultrasound results underwent TAB, which was conducted on average 4.5 days after the ultrasound. A total of 28 patients (30%) had a positive TAB result. Physicians diagnosed 35 TAB-negative patients with GCA using clinical, imaging, and biologic data, and 29 patients received alternative diagnoses. These other diagnoses included polymyalgia rheumatica, infectious diseases, cancer, and other systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

All patients diagnosed with GCA via ultrasound had their diagnoses reconfirmed at 1 month and for up to 2 years of follow-up.

“In summary, our study showed that the use of temporal artery ultrasound may be an efficient way to make the diagnosis of GCA in patients with high clinical suspicion and to reduce imaging costs and the need for biopsy, thereby limiting complications and the need for a surgeon,” the authors concluded.
 

Qualifications and Limitations

While over half of patients ultimately diagnosed with GCA were diagnosed using ultrasound, that percentage was “a bit lower than expected,” said Mark Matza, MD, MBA, the co-clinical director of rheumatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. By comparison, one systematic review calculated ultrasound’s pooled sensitivity at 88% and pooled specificity at 96% for the diagnosis of GCA.

“In this [current] study, 30% of patients who had negative ultrasound were then found to have positive biopsy, indicating that ultrasound missed a substantial portion of patients who were ultimately diagnosed with GCA,” he continued.

Ultrasound is “very operator dependent,” he added, and there has been “variability in test performance of ultrasound.”

The authors acknowledged that techniques for ultrasound of the temporal arteries have also evolved over the study period, and thus, findings may not have been consistent.

However, about one in four patients with GCA were diagnosed after having both negative ultrasound and TAB results.

“One of the things that this paper shows is that even the gold standard of temporal artery biopsy isn’t 100% either,” noted Minna Kohler, MD, who directs the rheumatology musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital. “That’s why clinically, there is an increasing emphasis on using multimodality imaging to assist in the diagnosis of GCA along with a physician’s clinical intuition,” she said.

Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — A retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) suggests that the antiseizure medication cenobamate (SK Life Sciences) in combination with existing lines of therapy may be associated with fewer hospital in-patient days and emergency room visits. The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.

A Proof-of-Concept Study

In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.

Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.

She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
 

A Promising Treatment Option

Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.

The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.

Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).

During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
 

‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed

The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.

Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — A retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) suggests that the antiseizure medication cenobamate (SK Life Sciences) in combination with existing lines of therapy may be associated with fewer hospital in-patient days and emergency room visits. The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.

A Proof-of-Concept Study

In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.

Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.

She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
 

A Promising Treatment Option

Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.

The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.

Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).

During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
 

‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed

The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.

Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — A retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) suggests that the antiseizure medication cenobamate (SK Life Sciences) in combination with existing lines of therapy may be associated with fewer hospital in-patient days and emergency room visits. The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.

A Proof-of-Concept Study

In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.

Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.

She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
 

A Promising Treatment Option

Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.

The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.

Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).

During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
 

‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed

The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.

Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.

Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.

Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
 

1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.

The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.

Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.

Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
 

2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.

Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.

ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:

• Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
• Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
• Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.

Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
 

3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.

hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.

Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.

4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.

hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.

hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.

5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.

After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.

Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.

Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.

Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
 

1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.

The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.

Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.

Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
 

2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.

Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.

ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:

• Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
• Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
• Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.

Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
 

3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.

hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.

Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.

4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.

hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.

hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.

5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.

After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.

Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.

Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.

Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
 

1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.

The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.

Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.

Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
 

2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.

Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.

ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:

• Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
• Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
• Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.

Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
 

3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.

hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.

Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.

4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.

hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.

hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.

5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.

After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.

Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.

Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — A first-in-class monoclonal antibody (riliprubart, Sanofi) that inhibits complement activation showed good activity versus IVIG in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.

‘Impressive’ Results

The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.

“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.

“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
 

An Open-Label Phase 2 Study

The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).

At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.

The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
 

Challenging the Current Standard of Care

The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.

Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — A first-in-class monoclonal antibody (riliprubart, Sanofi) that inhibits complement activation showed good activity versus IVIG in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.

‘Impressive’ Results

The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.

“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.

“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
 

An Open-Label Phase 2 Study

The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).

At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.

The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
 

Challenging the Current Standard of Care

The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.

Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — A first-in-class monoclonal antibody (riliprubart, Sanofi) that inhibits complement activation showed good activity versus IVIG in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.

‘Impressive’ Results

The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.

“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.

“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
 

An Open-Label Phase 2 Study

The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).

At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.

The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
 

Challenging the Current Standard of Care

The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.

Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.