Clinically meaningful improvements in cutaneous lesions and quality of life measures in patients with atopic dermatitis with greater pruritus reductions after treatment with 60 mg nemolizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks: Subgroup analysis from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial

Effectiveness and Safety of Nemolizumab in Patients with Prurigo Nodularis: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a chronic, severely pruritic condition that markedly impairs quality of life. Existing treatments show limited efficacy, prompting investigation of nemolizumab, an IL-31 receptor antagonist. This meta-analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nemolizumab with placebo in patients with PN. Effectiveness endpoints included a ≥ 4-point improvement in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4), a ≥ 2-point reduction in the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), and a ≥ 4-point improvement in the Sleep Disturbance Numerical Rating Scale (SD-NRS). Three RCTs involving 497 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses showed nemolizumab significantly increased the likelihood of achieving PP-NRS4 response (OR = 6.92, 95% CI: 3.84-12.45, P < .00001), IGA reduction (OR = 7.59, 95% CI: 3.58-16.12, P < .00001), and SD-NRS improvement (OR = 3.99, 95% CI: 2.39-6.66, P < .00001). Safety outcomes did not differ significantly between nemolizumab and placebo for adverse events, serious adverse events, or other specific categories. In conclusion, while maintaining a favorable safety profile, nemolizumab demonstrates robust efficacy in reducing pruritus, lesion severity, and sleep disturbance in patients with PN. While these findings are promising, the small number of included studies and potential for publication bias warrant cautious interpretation and highlight the need for further research. These findings support its role as a promising option for individuals with PN who are unresponsive to standard therapies.

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.

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.

Seladelpar treatment reduces IL-31 and pruritus in patients with primary biliary cholangitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pruritus is a debilitating symptom for many people living with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). In studies with seladelpar, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-delta agonist, patients with PBC experienced significant improvement in pruritus and reduction of serum bile acids. Interleukin-31 (IL-31) is a cytokine known to mediate pruritus, and blocking IL-31 signaling provides relief in pruritic skin diseases. This study examined the connection between seladelpar's antipruritic effects and IL-31 and bile acid levels in patients with PBC.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

IL-31 levels were quantified in serum samples from the ENHANCE study of patients with PBC receiving daily oral doses of placebo (n = 55), seladelpar 5 mg (n = 53) or 10 mg (n = 53) for 3 months, and for healthy volunteers (n = 55). IL-31 levels were compared with pruritus using a numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10) and with bile acid levels. Baseline IL-31 levels closely correlated with pruritus NRS ( r = 0.54, p < 0.0001), and total ( r = 0.54, p < 0.0001) and conjugated bile acids (up to 0.64, p < 0.0001). Decreases in IL-31 were observed with seladelpar 5 mg (-30%, p = 0.0003) and 10 mg (-52%, p < 0.0001) versus placebo (+31%). Patients with clinically meaningful improvement in pruritus (NRS ≥ 2 decrease) demonstrated greater dose-dependent reductions in IL-31 compared to those without pruritus improvement (NRS < 2 decrease). Strong correlations were observed for the changes between levels of IL-31 and total bile acids ( r = 0.63, p < 0.0001) in the seladelpar 10 mg group.

CONCLUSIONS

Seladelpar decreased serum IL-31 and bile acids in patients with PBC. The reductions of IL-31 and bile acids correlated closely with each other and pruritus improvement, suggesting a mechanism to explain seladelpar's antipruritic effects.

Monoclonal antibodies for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a look at phase III and beyond

INTRODUCTION

The understanding of atopic dermatitis (AD) pathogenesis has rapidly expanded in recent years, catalyzing the development of new targeted monoclonal antibody treatments for AD.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to summarize the latest clinical and molecular data about monoclonal antibodies that are in later stages of development for AD, either in Phase 3 trials or in the pharmacopoeia for up to 5 years, highlighting the biologic underpinning of each drug's mechanism of action and the potential modulation of the AD immune profile.

EXPERT OPINION

The therapeutic pipeline of AD treatments is speedily progressing, introducing the potential for a personalized medical approach in the near future. Understanding how targeting pathogenic players in AD modifies disease progression and symptomatology is key in improving therapeutic choices for patients and identifying ideal patient candidates.