Long-term topical treatment is often required for atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory skin disease.To assess the long-term safety results from a multicenter, open-label, 48-week safety study (AD-303) of patients (N = 517) ≥2 years of age with mild to moderate AD who continued crisaborole treatment, a topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, after completing a 28-day phase 3 pivotal study (AD-301, AD-302).Global disease severity was assessed in patients every 4 weeks, and if assessed as mild or greater, a 28-day treatment period with crisaborole applied twice daily was initiated. Adverse events (AEs), including treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and serious AEs were analyzed.During the pivotal studies and AD-303, 65% of patients reported ≥1 TEAE, most of which were mild (51.2%) or moderate (44.6%) and considered unrelated to treatment (93.1%). The frequency and severity of TEAEs were consistent. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs (overall, 10.2%) were dermatitis atopic (3.1%), application-site pain (2.3%), and application-site infection (1.2%). Nine patients (1.7%) discontinued the long-term study because of TEAEs.Long-term efficacy was not analyzed.Crisaborole ointment had a low frequency of treatment-related AEs over 48 weeks of treatment of patients with AD.
Background: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti–SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life. Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab. Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410) Setting: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines. Patients: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression. Intervention: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. Measurements: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death. Results: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (P < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (P < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events. Limitation: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants. Conclusion: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.
Importance SARS-CoV-2 viral load (VL) in the nasopharynx is difficult to quantify and standardize across settings, but it may inform transmission potential and disease severity. Objective To characterize VL at COVID-19 diagnosis among previously uninfected and unvaccinated individuals by evaluating the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with VL, as well as the ability of VL to predict severe disease. Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary cross-protocol analysis used individual-level data from placebo recipients from 4 harmonized, phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials sponsored by Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax. Participants were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline and acquired COVID-19 during the blinded phase of the trials. The setting included the US, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Mexico; start dates were July 27, 2020, to December 27, 2020; data cutoff dates were March 26, 2021, to July 30, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures Linear regression was used to assess the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with polymerase chain reaction–measured log 10 VL in nasal and/or nasopharyngeal swabs taken at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Results Among 1667 participants studied (886 [53.1%] male; 995 [59.7%] enrolled in the US; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [14.7] years; 204 [12.2%] aged 65 years or older; 196 [11.8%] American Indian or Alaska Native, 150 [9%] Black or African American, 1112 [66.7%] White; 762 [45.7%] Hispanic or Latino), median (IQR) log 10 VL at diagnosis was 6.18 (4.66-7.12) log 10 copies/mL. Participant characteristics and viral variant explained only 5.9% of the variability in VL. The independent factor with the highest observed differences was trial: Janssen participants had 0.54 log 10 copies/mL lower mean VL vs Moderna participants (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.87 log 10 copies/mL lower). In the Janssen study, which captured the largest number of COVID-19 events and variants and used the most intensive post-COVID surveillance, neither VL at diagnosis nor averaged over days 1 to 28 post diagnosis was associated with COVID-19 severity. Conclusions and Relevance In this study of placebo recipients from 4 randomized phase 3 trials, high variability was observed in SARS-CoV-2 VL at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and only a fraction was explained by individual participant characteristics or viral variant. These results suggest challenges for future studies of interventions seeking to influence VL and elevates the importance of standardized methods for specimen collection and viral load quantitation.
While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection.
Abstract Up to 90% of children and adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory skin disease, present with mild-to-moderate disease. Crisaborole Topical Ointment, 2%, is a novel, nonsteroidal, topical, anti-inflammatory, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor being studied for the treatment of AD. The efficacy and safety of crisaborole was assessed in 2 identically designed, multicenter, vehicle-controlled, double-blind Phase 3 studies (301 and 302) that enrolled patients ≥2 years old with mild-to-moderate AD affecting ≥5% of body surface area (BSA). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive crisaborole or vehicle twice daily and evaluated on Days 8, 15, 22, and 29. The primary endpoint defined success in the Investigator’s Static Global Assessment (ISGA) as “almost clear/1” or “clear/0” with ≥2-grade improvement from baseline at Day 29. Secondary endpoints analyzed the time to success and the percentage of patients achieving “almost clear/1” or “clear/0” on ISGA. At Day 29, more crisaborole-treated patients achieved ISGA success than vehicle (301: 32.8% vs 25.4%, P = 0.038; 302: 31.4% vs 18.0%, P < 0.001), with a greater percentage of “almost clear/1” or “clear/0” ISGA scores (301: 51.7% vs 40.6%, P = 0.005; 302: 48.5% vs 29.7%, P < 0.001). Success in ISGA scores was achieved earlier with crisaborole than vehicle (P < 0.001). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were usually mild and included upper respiratory tract infection (pooled data, crisaborole vs vehicle: 3.0% vs 3.0%) and application site pain (4.4% vs 1.2%). AE-related discontinuation rates were low for both groups (1.2%). 2 large Phase 3 studies demonstrated crisaborole may represent a novel, safe, and efficacious treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate AD.
Sir: We greatly appreciate the comments on our article “Should We Stick with Surgical Glues? The Incidence of Dermatitis after 2-Octyl Cyanoacrylate Exposure in 102 Consecutive Breast Cases” and would like to thank the authors for sharing their experience with Dermabond Prineo (Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, N.J.).1 The inclusion of a self-adhering mesh in the product makes it unique as compared to the cyanoacrylate agents we studied. Despite this, it is most likely the liquid component (the 2-octyl cyanoacrylate) that is causing the “extreme reactions” noted. Allergy testing would be warranted to verify the true allergen in this case. The authors noted that only one of the three patients with reactions had a known allergy to tapes, but that the other two had no known history of allergy to cyanoacrylate, formaldehyde, tapes, or adhesives. In preparing our own study, we were surprised to learn how commonplace cyanoacrylate is in everyday consumer products (e.g., lash extension glue, artificial nail glue, wire wrapping, over-the-counter cyanoacrylate wound dressings, household glues). Many patients may not be aware of or recall prior reactions to such products. In addition, although we were unable to demonstrate a statistical significance in our study, we believe repeated exposures increase the likelihood of a reaction to surgical glue. Perhaps repeated prior exposures to cosmetic products (e.g., lashes and nails) sensitized the patients to Prineo. With regard to patch testing before the use of Prineo on patients, this raises some practical considerations. Given that there would be a risk of sensitizing with a patch test because of the theoretical additional exposure, albeit small, it may be worth selectively patch testing patients with prior exposure to such cosmetic products and other cyanoacrylate-containing products before applying Prineo, Dermabond, Liquiband (Advanced Medical Solutions Limited, Winsford, Cheshire, United Kingdom), and others. The cost of each individual-use vial used for each patient’s patch test is quite high. Using an alternative to surgical grade cyanoacrylate, such as can be found over the counter in pharmacies for minor wounds, would be a less expensive option but may be unreliable. Alternatively, the risks could be relayed to the patient for a joint decision on whether to test the surgical glue or not. This is certainly an area warranting further research. We appreciate the authors sharing their experience with reactions to Prineo for plastic surgeons worldwide. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial disclosures to report.
