Long-term efficacy and safety of subcutaneous C1-inhibitor in women with hereditary angioedema: subgroup analysis from an open-label extension of a phase 3 trial.
C1-inhibitor
Childbearing
Conception
Estrogen
Female
HAEGARDA
Hereditary angioedema
Pregnancy
Women
Journal
Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
ISSN: 1710-1484
Titre abrégé: Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101244313
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
16
12
2019
accepted:
27
01
2020
entrez:
12
2
2020
pubmed:
12
2
2020
medline:
12
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Women with hereditary angioedema due to C1-inhibitor deficiency (HAE-C1INH) experience more frequent and severe angioedema attacks compared with men. Fluctuations in female sex hormones can influence HAE attack frequency and severity. Subcutaneous C1-INH (C1-INH [SC]) is indicated as routine prophylaxis to prevent HAE attacks. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of C1-INH (SC) in female subjects with HAE-C1INH enrolled in an open-label extension of the pivotal phase III COMPACT trial. In this multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm trial, eligible subjects (age ≥ 6 years with ≥ 4 attacks over 2 consecutive months) received C1-INH (SC) 40 IU/kg or 60 IU/kg twice weekly for 52 to 140 weeks. Analyses of efficacy endpoints were performed for all female subjects and those of childbearing age (age ≥ 15 to ≤ 45 years), including subjects who became pregnant during the evaluation period. Overall, 91% (69/76) of female subjects were classified as responders (≥ 50% reduction in HAE attacks relative to the pre-study period); 82% experienced < 1 attack/4 weeks. The median number of attacks/month was 0.10, with 96% median reduction in attacks relative to the pre-study period. Results were similar in the subgroup of subjects of childbearing age. Four women who became pregnant during the trial and were exposed to C1-INH (SC) during the first trimester delivered healthy babies with no congenital abnormalities. C1-INH (SC) prophylaxis was safe and effective in women with HAE-C1INH, including those of childbearing age. Four women exposed to C1-INH (SC) during the first trimester had uneventful pregnancies and delivered healthy babies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Women with hereditary angioedema due to C1-inhibitor deficiency (HAE-C1INH) experience more frequent and severe angioedema attacks compared with men. Fluctuations in female sex hormones can influence HAE attack frequency and severity. Subcutaneous C1-INH (C1-INH [SC]) is indicated as routine prophylaxis to prevent HAE attacks. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of C1-INH (SC) in female subjects with HAE-C1INH enrolled in an open-label extension of the pivotal phase III COMPACT trial.
METHODS
METHODS
In this multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm trial, eligible subjects (age ≥ 6 years with ≥ 4 attacks over 2 consecutive months) received C1-INH (SC) 40 IU/kg or 60 IU/kg twice weekly for 52 to 140 weeks. Analyses of efficacy endpoints were performed for all female subjects and those of childbearing age (age ≥ 15 to ≤ 45 years), including subjects who became pregnant during the evaluation period.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 91% (69/76) of female subjects were classified as responders (≥ 50% reduction in HAE attacks relative to the pre-study period); 82% experienced < 1 attack/4 weeks. The median number of attacks/month was 0.10, with 96% median reduction in attacks relative to the pre-study period. Results were similar in the subgroup of subjects of childbearing age. Four women who became pregnant during the trial and were exposed to C1-INH (SC) during the first trimester delivered healthy babies with no congenital abnormalities.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
C1-INH (SC) prophylaxis was safe and effective in women with HAE-C1INH, including those of childbearing age. Four women exposed to C1-INH (SC) during the first trimester had uneventful pregnancies and delivered healthy babies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32042283
doi: 10.1186/s13223-020-0409-3
pii: 409
pmc: PMC7001333
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02316353']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
8Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsD. Levy has served on the speaker’s bureau, as a consultant, on a steering committee, and as a clinical investigator for CSL Behring; consultant for BioCryst; and speaker for Takeda. H. Farkas received institutional support for a clinical trial for this study from CSL Behring; advisory board/consultancy fees and/or speaker’s honoraria from BioCryst, CSL Behring, Shire, and Sobi (Swedish Orphan Biovitrum); and travel support from CSL Behring. M. Riedl reports grant support from CSL Behring during the conduct of the study and has received research grants from BioCryst, CSL Behring, Dyax, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Pharming Technologies, and Shire; has served as a consultant and/or speaker for Adverum Biotechnologies, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, BioCryst, CSL Behring, Dyax, Global Blood Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KalVista Pharmaceuticals, Pharming Technologies, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Shire; and is an uncompensated advisory board member for the US Hereditary Angioedema Association, outside the submitted work. F. Hsu reports serving as a consultant for BioCryst; serving as a speaker for CSL Behring, Pharming Technologies BV, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; and performing contracted research for Hoffman-La Roche. J.P. Brooks declares that he has no competing interests. M. Cicardi received grants from Shire and personal fees from Alnylam, BioCryst, CSL Behring, Dyax, KalVista, Pharming Technologies, Shire, Sobi (Swedish Orphan Biovitrum), and ViroPharma. H. Feuersenger and I. Pragst are employees of CSL Behring. A. Reshef reports grant support from CSL Behring during the conduct of the study and has received grant support from Pharming.
Références
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Feb;49(1):2-5
pubmed: 19281571
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Sep;152(1):44-9
pubmed: 20541309
Am J Med. 2006 Mar;119(3):267-74
pubmed: 16490473
J Clin Invest. 1984 May;73(5):1249-53
pubmed: 6371055
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Jul - Aug;7(6):1793-1802.e2
pubmed: 30772477
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Nov;199(5):484.e1-4
pubmed: 18554570
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Aug;203(2):131.e1-7
pubmed: 20471627
Allergy. 2018 Aug;73(8):1575-1596
pubmed: 29318628
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2016;26(3):161-7
pubmed: 27326983
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012 Feb;129(2):308-20
pubmed: 22197274
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Sep;114(3 Suppl):S51-131
pubmed: 15356535
Am J Med. 2003 Mar;114(4):294-8
pubmed: 12681457
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 Mar;99(3):212-5
pubmed: 1606119
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008 Feb;100(2):153-61
pubmed: 18320917
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Mar;101(3):619-27
pubmed: 16464219
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014 Mar 28;9:44
pubmed: 24678771
Br J Pharmacol. 1997 Aug;121(8):1763-9
pubmed: 9283715
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2013 Oct;111(4):290-4
pubmed: 24054366
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017 Jul;140(1):170-176
pubmed: 27826093
Medicine (Baltimore). 1992 Jul;71(4):206-15
pubmed: 1518394
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 23;376(12):1131-1140
pubmed: 28328347