Search

Background: Disease burden is particularly high in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) patients with angioedema, and patients whose signs and symptoms are inadequately controlled by H1-antihistamines need new treatment options. Here we report an exploratory analysis, from the ligelizumab Phase 2b study, investigating angioedema occurrence in patients with CSU and describe the changes in angioedema following treatment with ligelizumab, omalizumab, or placebo. Methods: Data from the ligelizumab Phase 2b core (ligelizumab 72 mg, 240 mg, omalizumab 300 mg and placebo) and extension study (ligelizumab 240 mg) were used. Changes in Weekly Angioedema Activity Score (AAS7), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) among each time point were analyzed for each treatment arm. Results: From a total of 297 patients analyzed, 165 (55.6%) reported angioedema occurrence at baseline, with mean AAS7 ranging 30.6—42.2 across treatment arms. At Week 12 of the core study 87.5%, 84.6%, 75.0%, and 61.0% of patients were angioedema free for ligelizumab 72 mg, 240 mg, omalizumab 300 mg, and placebo arms, respectively. In CSU patients with angioedema at baseline, the largest change from baseline in AAS7 score was observed with ligelizumab 72 mg (−31.9) at week 16 in the core study. Patients with angioedema had a higher mean DLQI at baseline (14.9—16.1) vs. patients without angioedema (10.6—12.0). In patients with angioedema, low AAS7 was significantly associated with complete response on UAS7 (UAS7 = 0) and complete normalization of DLQI (DLQI 0—1). Conclusion: In the Phase 2b study, ligelizumab effectively reduced angioedema and urticaria symptoms, and improved health related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe CSU. Clinicaltrails.gov NCT number: NCT02477332; NCT02649218.

Background: Patients with chronic urticaria (CU) are increasingly using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to manage their health. What CU patients expect from ICTs and which ICTs they prefer remains unknown. We assessed why CU patients use ICTs, which ones they prefer, and what drives their expectations and choices. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 1841 patients across 17 countries were recruited at UCAREs (Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence). Patients with CU who were >12 years old completed a 23-item questionnaire. Results: Most patients were interested in receiving disease information (87.3%), asking physicians about CU (84.1%), and communicating with other patients through ICTs (65.6%). For receiving disease information, patients preferred one-to-one and one-to-many ICTs, especially web browsers. One-to-one ICTs were also the ICTs of choice for asking physicians about urticaria and for communicating with other patients, and e-mail and WhatsApp were the preferred ICTs, respectively. Many-to-many ICTs such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter were least preferred for all 3 purposes. Living in rural areas and higher education were linked to higher odds of being interested in receiving disease information, asking physicians, and communicating with patients through ICTs. Conclusions: Most patients and especially patients with higher education who live in rural areas are interested in using ICTs for their healthcare, but prefer different ICTs for different purposes, ie, web browsers for obtaining information, e-mail for asking physicians, and WhatsApp for communicating with other patients. Our findings may help to improve ICTs for CU.