| Literature DB >> 21753889 |
Benjamin Davis1, Jonathan A Bernstein.
Abstract
Recently, multiple C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) replacement products have been approved for the treatment of hereditary angioedema (HAE). This review summarizes HAE and its current treatment modalities and focuses on findings from bench to bedside trials of a new C1-INH replacement, conestat alfa. Conestat alfa is unique among the other C1-INH replacement products because it is produced from transgenic rabbits rather than derived from human plasma donors, which can potentially allow an unlimited source of drug without any concern of infectious transmission. The clinical trial data generated to date indicate that conestat alfa is safe and effective for the treatment of acute HAE attacks.Entities:
Keywords: HAE attacks; adverse events; androgens; patients
Year: 2011 PMID: 21753889 PMCID: PMC3132097 DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S15544
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag ISSN: 1176-6336 Impact factor: 2.423
Figure 1Sites of C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) regulation of the contact, complement, and fibrinolytic systems. Conestat alfa, a recombinant C1-INH, likely regulates the same sites.
Pharmacodynamics of C4 in asymptomatic hereditary angioedema patients
| C4 | 538.7 (184.37) | 175.5 (81.93) | 640.0 (123.94) | 80.0 (2.05) | 35.5 (20.11) |
| C4b/c | 107.4 (58.51) | 5.3 (1.90) | 40.3 (39.63) |
Pharmacokinetics of conestat alpha
| 0.18 (0.12) | 1.36 (0.31) | 0.0236 (0.00468) | 314.5 (210.3) | 22.8 (7.3) | 3.03 (0.79) | 93.7 (8.5) | 46.9 (14.97) |
Summary of safety and efficacy trials
| Phase II | 100 U/kg within 8 hours of attack onset | 9 subjects with 13 severe attacks | 80% achieved symptom relief in 2 hours and minimal symptoms by 12 hours | No drug-related adverse events or immunogenic reactions | ||
| No postexposure antibody response against either rhC1-INH or rabbit-related impurities | ||||||
| Phase III | Saline | n = 29 | 495 | 1220 | 59% | |
| 50 U/kg | n = 12 | 122 | 247 | 0% | ||
| 100 U/kg | n = 29 | 66 | 266 | 10% | ||
Note:
The larger 95% CI of the odds ratios for the 50 U/kg group compared with that for the 100 U/kg group suggests no real difference in the percentage of therapeutic failures in either treatment group, which is in agreement with open label data.