Nemolizumab Improves Patient-Reported Symptoms of Atopic Dermatitis with Pruritus: Post Hoc Analysis of a Japanese Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial

Long-term (68 weeks) administration of nemolizumab in paediatric patients aged 6-12 years with atopic dermatitis with moderate-to-severe pruritus: efficacy and safety data from a phase III study

BACKGROUND

A phase III clinical trial in Japanese children aged 6-12 years with atopic dermatitis (AD) and inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe pruritus found that 16 weeks of nemolizumab treatment [30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W)] was clinically effective and tolerable, with early improvement in pruritus and associated skin signs and a positive impact on patient quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To report the findings from the long-term extension period of the study, and evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of nemolizumab when administered concomitantly with topical agents over 68 weeks.

METHODS

The study included a 16-week randomized placebo-controlled double-blind parallel-group period during which patients received nemolizumab 30 mg or placebo Q4W; those who completed this period could enter a 52-week long-term treatment period during which all patients received nemolizumab Q4W. Efficacy endpoints assessed treatment impact on pruritus, AD signs and QoL. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were tabulated to evaluate long-term safety. The study was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT2080225289).

RESULTS

Among the 89 paediatric patients evaluated, efficacy outcome measures showed a tendency toward improvement between weeks 16 and 68, and sustained efficacy during the subsequent follow-up period after treatment cessation. At week 68, among patients who received nemolizumab treatment throughout the study, the mean (SD) change from baseline in the 5-level itch score was -1.8 (0.8), the mean (SD) percentage change from baseline in the Average Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score was -65.9 (25.0), and the mean (SD) percentage change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score was -77.1 (23.1). Data from the Dermatitis Family Impact questionnaire indicated that the burden of housework on family members and parent/caregiver fatigue were reduced and the sleep quality of family members was improved by week 16, with further improvement at week 68. The overall safety profile was similar to that recorded in nemolizumab-treated patients aged ≥ 13 years, with no late-onset TEAEs seen over long-term treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm the safety of long-term nemolizumab for paediatric patients with AD, and demonstrate improvements in pruritus, skin symptoms, and patient and caregiver QoL over 68 weeks of treatment.

Executive summary: Japanese guidelines for atopic dermatitis (ADGL) 2024

This is an abridged edition of English version of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Atopic Dermatitis 2024. Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a disease characterized by relapsing eczema with pruritus as a primary lesion. A crucial aspect of AD treatment is the prompt induction of remission via the suppression of existing skin inflammation and pruritus. To achieve this, topical anti-inflammatory drugs such as topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus ointment, delgocitinib ointment, and difamilast ointment have been used. However, the following treatments should be considered in addition to topical therapy for patients with refractory moderate-to-severe AD: oral cyclosporine, subcutaneous injections of biologics (dupilumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab), oral Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib, upadacitinib, abrocitinib), and phototherapy. In the revised guidelines, descriptions of five new drugs, namely, difamilast, nemolizumab, tralokinumab, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib, have been added. The guidelines present recommendations to review clinical research articles, evaluate the balance between the advantages and disadvantages of medical activities, and optimize medical activity-related patient outcomes with respect to several important points requiring decision-making in clinical practice.

English version of clinical practice guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis 2024

This is the English version of the 2024 clinical practice guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis (AD). AD is a disease characterized by relapsing eczema with pruritus as a primary lesion. A crucial aspect of AD treatment is the prompt induction of remission via the suppression of existing skin inflammation and pruritus. To achieve this, topical anti-inflammatory drugs, such as topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus ointment, delgocitinib ointment, and difamilast ointment, have been used. However, the following treatments should be considered in addition to topical therapy for patients with refractory moderate-to-severe AD: oral cyclosporine, subcutaneous injections of biologics (dupilumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab), oral Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib, upadacitinib, abrocitinib), and phototherapy. In these revised guidelines, descriptions of five new drugs, namely, difamilast, nemolizumab, tralokinumab, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib, have been added. The guidelines present recommendations to review clinical research articles, evaluate the balance between the advantages and disadvantages of medical activities, and optimize medical activity-related patient outcomes with respect to several important points requiring decision-making in clinical practice.

Severe Atopic Dermatitis With Increasing Daytime Sleepiness Following Nemolizumab Administration: A Case Report

Atopic dermatitis (AD) often impairs daytime activities and quality of life (QOL) owing to intense pruritus, which disrupts sleep. Nemolizumab, an interleukin (IL)-31 receptor α inhibitor, has emerged as a promising treatment that can alleviate itching and enhance both nighttime rest and daytime functioning. We report the case of a 16-year-old boy with severe AD that was refractory to multiple therapies, including topical steroids, immunomodulators, topical Janus kinase (JAK) and phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors, moisturizers, and oral antihistamines. Subcutaneous administration of nemolizumab was initiated, resulting in significant improvements in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) scores. However, he exhibited a marked increase in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) the day after each injection, accompanied by pronounced daytime drowsiness lasting one to two weeks. Upon discontinuation of nemolizumab at the patient's request, daytime sleepiness resolved. Although nemolizumab is expected to reduce pruritus and improve daytime alertness, our patient exhibited paradoxical post-injection hypersomnolence. Possible contributors include shifts in the circadian rhythm or central nervous system effects related to IL-31 inhibition, although the precise mechanism is yet to be established. Therefore, careful monitoring of both dermatologic outcomes and daytime vigilance is essential. Clinicians should be aware of potential post-injection sleepiness when administering nemolizumab, given that it is an otherwise effective treatment for severe AD.

Nemolizumab with concomitant topical therapy in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2): results from two replicate, double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND

Nemolizumab, an interleukin (IL)-31 receptor subunit α antagonist, inhibits the IL-31 pathway of itch and skin inflammation in atopic dermatitis. Two international phase 3 studies were done to assess the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab in atopic dermatitis. In this Article we report results for the 16-week initial treatment period of both trials.

METHODS

ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 were identical 48-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in adult and adolescent participants (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, associated pruritus, and inadequate response to topical steroids. Participants were enrolled from 281 clinics, hospitals, and academic centres in 22 countries across both trials, and were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously (baseline loading dose 60 mg) or matching placebo once every 4 weeks with background topical corticosteroids (TCS) with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI; ie, TCS-TCI background treatment). Randomisation was done via interactive response technology and stratified by baseline disease and pruritus severity. Study staff and participants were masked throughout the study, with outcome assessors masked until database lock. Coprimary endpoints at week 16 post-baseline were Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 [clear skin] or 1 [almost clear skin] with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline) and at least 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline (EASI-75 response). Outcome rates were compared between groups with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for randomisation strata. The key secondary endpoints were the proportion of participants with Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score improvement of at least 4 points at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 16; PP-NRS score below 2 at weeks 4 and 16; Sleep Disturbance Numerical Rating Scale score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; EASI-75 response plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; and IGA success plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16. Efficacy analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis; safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of nemolizumab or placebo. Both studies are completed (ClinicalTrials.gov: ARCADIA 1, NCT03985943 and ARCADIA 2, NCT03989349).

FINDINGS

Between Aug 9, 2019, and Nov 2, 2022, 1728 participants were enrolled across both trials: 1142 were allocated to nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI (620 in ARCADIA 1 and 522 in ARCADIA 2) and 586 to placebo plus TCS-TCI (321 in ARCADIA 1 and 265 in ARCADIA 2). ARCADIA 1 included 500 (53%) male participants and 441 (47%) female participants, and ARCADIA 2 included 381 (48%) male participants and 406 (52%) female participants. Mean age ranged from 33·3 (SD 15·6) years to 35·2 (17·0) years across the treatment groups. Both trials met the coprimary endpoints; at week 16, a greater proportion of participants receiving nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI versus placebo plus TCS-TCI had IGA success (ARCADIA 1: 221 [36%] of 620 vs 79 [25%] of 321, adjusted percentage difference 11·5% [97·5% CI 4·7-18·3], p=0·0003; ARCADIA 2: 197 [38%] of 522 vs 69 [26%] of 265, adjusted difference 12·2% [4·6-19·8], p=0·0006) and an EASI-75 response (ARCADIA 1: 270 [44%] vs 93 [29%], adjusted difference 14·9% [7·8-22·0], p<0·0001; ARCADIA 2: 220 [42%] vs 80 [30%], adjusted difference 12·5% [4·6-20·3], p=0·0006). Significant benefits were observed with nemolizumab for all key secondary endpoints including improvement in itch, as early as week 1, and sleep improvement by week 16. The safety profile was similar between nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI and placebo plus TCS-TCI. In the safety sets, 306 (50%) of 616 participants (ARCADIA 1) and 215 (41%) of 519 participants (ARCADIA 2) who received nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in six [1%] and 13 [3%], respectively); and 146 (45%) of 321 (ARCADIA 1) and 117 (44%) of 263 (ARCADIA 2) who received placebo plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in four [1%] and three [1%], respectively). Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events possibly related to nemolizumab were reported in five (1%) participants in ARCADIA 2. No deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI was efficacious and showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and itch in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of current therapies if approved.

FUNDING

Galderma.

A Comprehensive Review of Biologics in Phase III and IV Clinical Trials for Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a skin condition characterized by significant challenges and a substantial deterioration in the life quality for affected patients. The therapeutic landscape for AD has witnessed a transformative shift with the emergence of biologic therapies. Our focus centers on biologics currently undergoing phase III and IV clinical trials, deeming them to hold the highest potential for significant clinical relevance. To identify biologic drugs under development in phase III and IV clinical trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. Additional relevant trials were identified through JapicCTI/ Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) with a citation search. A search in MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. There have been 76 clinical trials identified concerning biologic drugs: dupilumab (34 trials), lebrikizumab (14 trials), tralokinumab (10 trials), rocatinlimab (7 trials), amlitelimab (2 trials), nemolizumab (6 trials), MG-K10 (1 trial), CM310 (1 trial), 611 (1 trial). A search in MEDLINE revealed 132 articles concerning phase III and IV clinical trials for AD treatment. A total of 39 articles concerned biologic drugs covering 23 clinical trials. A search in EMBASE revealed 268 relevant articles, allowing us to identify results of an additional six clinical trials. The safety and efficacy of these biologics are comprehensively addressed in this review. This comprehensive review aims to explore the current landscape of biologic therapies for AD, delving into the latest research findings, clinical trial outcomes, and the diverse mechanisms of action employed by these novel interventions.

Interleukin antagonists for atopic dermatitis: a new era of therapy

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, increasing understanding of the immunopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD) enabled the recognition of multiple therapeutic targets and subsequently the development of novel, highly effective systemic treatments, including interleukin (IL)-antagonists. To date, the IL-4Ra-inhibitor dupilumab and the IL-13 inhibitor tralokinumab have gained regulatory approval in Europe for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD, while more than 70 new therapeutics are currently in development.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we address the role of ILs in the pathogenesis of AD and provide an overview of the novel and investigational IL-antagonists, as regards their efficacy and safety on moderate-to-severe AD.

EXPERT OPINION

Current data have established IL-4 and IL-13 inhibitors as effective and safe for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD, as regards the rapid control of flares as well as the long-term remission of the disease. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of other IL-inhibitors, including those targeting IL-31, IL-22, IL-33, IL-36 and IL-18, are accumulating. There is still an unmet need for real-world-evidence studies and head-to-head studies for both currently available and future agents in AD treatment. Establishing predictive biomarkers of treatment response in a disorder of such considerable heterogenicity might help physicians pursue a patient-tailored therapeutic response.

Pathogenesis-based application of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis: Current and future perspectives

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is heterogeneous and contains diverse pathogenesis including type 1, type 2, and/or type 3 inflammation. For severe type 2 CRS especially CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), biologics that target inflammatory molecules have recently been applied along with further changes in the treatment algorithm for CRS. Currently, a completed phase 3 clinical trial for biologics for severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to surgery and/or intranasal corticosteroids, including omalizumab (anti-IgE), mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα), and dupilumab (anti-IL-4Rα), have all shown efficacy. Similar phase 3 clinical trials for tezepelumab (anti-TSLP) and etokimab (anti-IL-33) are now underway and completed, respectively. Further studies need to evaluate how to optimally and cost-effectively use biologics for CRS and determine if any biomarkers are indicative of which biologics should be administered. A definition of complete and/or clinical remission of CRS is also needed to determine when to reduce or discontinue biologics. In addition, more precise basic research on CRS, such as endotyping and genotyping, will need to be undertaken in order to determine novel targets for biologics.

A Mini Review of the Impact of Baseline Disease Severity on Clinical Outcomes: Should We Compare Atopic Dermatitis Clinical Trials?

Based on clinical trials of systemic treatments in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) reported between 2014 and 2023, we used linear regression to investigate relationships between baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores and (1) study start date, (2) EASI response, and (3) rescue medication rates. Analysis 1 was conducted with all patients from monotherapy and combination therapy trials; analyses 2 and 3 used monotherapy trial placebo arms. Across 32 trials with a baseline inclusion criterion of EASI ≥ 16, baseline mean EASI scores decreased with study start date. The lowest and highest baseline mean EASI scores were 25.1 and 33.6 (median 21.1 and 30.5), reported for the WW001 Phase 2 trial of rademikibart (formerly CBP-201; start date, July 2020) and the SOLO1 Phase 3 trial of dupilumab (start date, December 2014), respectively. In placebo arms, lower baseline EASI scores tended to be associated with greater percent reductions in EASI scores at Week 16 and less rescue medication usage. The WW001 trial placebo arm had the lowest baseline EASI score (mean 25.2; median 22.1), lowest rescue medication rate (14.3%), and a large reduction in least squares mean EASI scores (- 39.7%) at Week 16. In summary, baseline mean EASI scores have decreased across clinical trials conducted during the last decade. Less severe AD at baseline tended to be associated with greater placebo response and less use of rescue medications in placebo arms. Intertrial differences in variables, such as baseline AD severity, limit the validity of indirectly comparing clinical trials.