Advertisement

Journal of Clinical Immunology

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 1204–1212 | Cite as

Efficacy Assessments in Randomized Controlled Studies of Acute Therapy for Hereditary Angioedema

  • Teresa Caballero
Article

Abstract

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disorder caused by a deficiency of C1 esterase inhibitor, characterized by recurrent, highly variable attacks of subcutaneous or submucosal edema that may affect multiple body sites. Clinical studies of acute HAE therapies have required the use of assessment tools to evaluate both pretreatment attack severity (baseline severity) and changes in symptom severity following treatment (treatment response). This article reviews the range of assessment tools used for efficacy determination of acute HAE therapies, based on a review of relevant clinical studies. Because the goal is relief of symptoms (rather than cure), patient-reported outcomes (PROs) form the basis of these tools. Tools used to evaluate baseline severity typically employ location-specific assessment of symptom severity, using either categorical descriptions (which may be converted into numerical variables) or a visual analog scale (VAS). Some studies define the initial or most symptomatic site as an “index” site for purposes of efficacy determination, while others (such as the Mean Symptom Complex Severity score used in clinical studies of ecallantide) use a composite score that reflects all sites. Assessment of treatment response typically employs the same tool(s) to evaluate baseline severity, and may be either time-based (e.g., time to achievement of minimal or no symptoms) or symptom-based (e.g., degree of symptom relief at predetermined time points). Although it is unlikely that therapies will be compared using identical assessment tools, prospective or retrospective validation ensures the adequacy and relevance of such tools, which should be taken into consideration when therapies are compared.

Keywords

Hereditary angioedema symptom severity C1 esterase inhibitor patient-reported outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Editorial and writing assistance in the development of this manuscript was provided by Publication CONNEXION (Newtown, PA) and funded by Dyax Corp. (Cambridge, MA). Dr. Caballero meets criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), was fully responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and was involved at all stages of manuscript development. Dr. Caballero received no honorarium for her role as author of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Gompels MM, Lock RJ, Abinun M, et al. C1 inhibitor deficiency: consensus document. Clin Exp Immunol. 2005;139(3):379–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zuraw BL. Clinical practice. Hereditary angioedema. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(10):1027–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caballero T, Baeza ML, Cabañas R, et al. Consensus statement on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of angioedema mediated by bradykinin. Part I. Classification, epidemiology, pathophysiology, genetics, clinical symptoms, and diagnosis. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2011;21(5):333–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frank MM. Hereditary angioedema: a current state-of-the-art review, VI: novel therapies for hereditary angioedema. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;100(1 Suppl 2):S23–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caballero T, Baeza ML, Cabañas R, et al. Consensus statement on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of angioedema mediated by bradykinin. Part II. Treatment, follow-up, and special situations. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2011;21(6):422–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Craig TJ, Levy RJ, Wasserman RL, et al. Efficacy of human C1 esterase inhibitor concentrate compared with placebo in acute hereditary angioedema attacks. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(4):801–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zuraw BL, Busse PJ, White M, et al. Nanofiltered C1 inhibitor concentrate for treatment of hereditary angioedema. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):513–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zuraw B, Cicardi M, Levy RJ, et al. Recombinant human C1-inhibitor for the treatment of acute angioedema attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(4):821–7. e14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cicardi M, Banerji A, Bracho F, et al. Icatibant, a new bradykinin-receptor antagonist, in hereditary angioedema. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):532–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lumry WR, Li HH, Levy RJ, et al. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of the bradykinin B(2) receptor antagonist icatibant for the treatment of acute attacks of hereditary angioedema: the FAST-3 trial. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;107(6):529–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cicardi M, Levy RJ, McNeil DL, et al. Ecallantide for the treatment of acute attacks in hereditary angioedema. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):523–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy RJ, Lumry WR, McNeil DL, et al. EDEMA4: a phase 3, double-blind study of subcutaneous ecallantide treatment for acute attacks of hereditary angioedema. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010;104(6):523–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bork K, Meng G, Staubach P, Hardt J. Hereditary angioedema: new findings concerning symptoms, affected organs, and course. Am J Med. 2006;119(3):267–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims; 2009.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Reflection Paper on the Regulatory Guidance for the Use of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Measures in the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. London: European Medicines Agency; 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herschorn S, Swift S, Guan Z, et al. Comparison of fesoterodine and tolterodine extended release for the treatment of overactive bladder: a head-to-head placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int. 2010;105(1):58–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathew NT, Jaffri SF. A double-blind comparison of onabotulinumtoxina (BOTOX) and topiramate (TOPAMAX) for the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine: a pilot study. Headache. 2009;49(10):1466–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pincus T, Chung C, Segurado OG, Amara I, Koch GG. An index of patient reported outcomes (PRO-Index) discriminates effectively between active and control treatment in 4 clinical trials of adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(11):2146–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Propert KJ, Alexander RB, Nickel JC, Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Research Network, et al. Design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Urology. 2002;59(6):870–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rothman M, Vallow S, Damaraju CV, Hewitt DJ. Using the patient global assessment of the method of pain control to assess new analgesic modalities in clinical trials. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1433–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shikiar R, Bresnahan BW, Stone SP, Thompson C, Koo J, Revicki DA. Validity and reliability of patient reported outcomes used in psoriasis: results from two randomized clinical trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shikiar R, Willian MK, Okun MM, Thompson CS, Revicki DA. The validity and responsiveness of three quality of life measures in the assessment of psoriasis patients: results of a phase II study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toglia MR, Serels SR, Laramée C, et al. Solifenacin for overactive bladder: patient-reported outcomes from a large placebo-controlled trial. Postgrad Med. 2009;121(5):151–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Agostoni A, Aygoren-Pursun E, Binkley KE, et al. Hereditary and acquired angioedema: problems and progress: proceedings of the third C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency workshop and beyond. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(3 Suppl):S51–S131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vernon MK, Rentz AM, Wyrwich KW, White MV, Grienenberger A. Psychometric validation of two patient-reported outcome measures to assess symptom severity and changes in symptoms in hereditary angioedema. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):929–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bernstein JA, Ritchie B, Levy RJ, et al. Hereditary angioedema: Validation of the end point time to onset of relief by correlation with symptom intensity. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2011;32(1):36–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riedl M, Campion M, Horn PT, Pullman WE. Response time for ecallantide treatment of acute hereditary angioedema attacks. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010;105(6):430–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roche O, Blanch A, Caballero T, Sastre N, Callejo D, Lopez-Trascasa M. Hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency: patient registry and approach to the prevalence in Spain. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005;94(4):498–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Servicio de Alergia, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Hospital La Paz Health Research Institute (IdiPaz), Biomedical Research Network on Rare diseases-U754 (CIBERER)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations