Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2020 Dec;146(6):1397-1405.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.08.037. Epub 2020 Sep 18.

Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in hypereosinophilic syndrome: A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in hypereosinophilic syndrome: A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Florence Roufosse et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Anti-IL-5 therapy is a potential treatment for patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), although its clinical efficacy is unclear.

Objective: We sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of mepolizumab versus placebo in patients with HES.

Methods: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial was conducted across 39 centers in 13 countries. Eligible patients had FIP1L1-PDGFRA-negative HES, experienced 2 or more flares (worsening of HES-related symptoms or blood eosinophil count requiring therapeutic escalation) in the previous 12 months, and had a screening blood eosinophil count greater than or equal to 1000 cells/μL. Patients were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous mepolizumab (300 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 32 weeks, plus existing HES therapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with 1 or more flares (worsening of HES-related symptoms necessitating therapy escalation or ≥2 courses of blinded rescue oral corticosteroids) during the study; in addition, patients who withdrew early from the study were counted as having a flare. Safety end points were also assessed.

Results: The proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more flares/withdrawing from the study was 50% lower with mepolizumab versus placebo (15 of 54 [28%] vs 30 of 54 [56%]; P = .002). Logistic regression analysis was consistent with the primary analysis (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = .003). Similar proportions of patients in the mepolizumab and placebo groups experienced on-treatment adverse events (48 of 54 [89%] vs 47 of 54 [87%]).

Conclusions: Compared with placebo, mepolizumab significantly reduced the occurrence of flares in patients with HES, with no new safety signals identified.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02836496.

Keywords: Hypereosinophilic syndrome; efficacy; flare; mepolizumab; safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
Study design and enrolment and follow-up of patients. A, The design of the study. B, The screening, enrolment, randomization, treatment, and follow-up of patients. *Following study completion, patients could be entered in an open-label extension (mepolizumab 300 mg SC, every 4 weeks; GSK study ID: 205203; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03306043). Patients who continued with open-label mepolizumab had their last assessment at week 32. †Patients who did not continue with open-label mepolizumab had an additional 8-week follow-up period, concluding with a final visit 12 weeks after their last dose. ‡Two patients (1 in the placebo group, 1 in the mepolizumab group) discontinued treatment and remained in the study off-treatment until week 32. The patient in the placebo group discontinued owing to a lack of willingness to regularly fill out the eDiary; the patient in the mepolizumab group discontinued owing to patient/proxy decision. §The patient in the mepolizumab group who discontinued owing to AE experienced 4 serious AEs (HES flare, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and septic shock). These were fatal, and were not considered by the investigator to be treatment-related. SC, Subcutaneous.
FIG 2.
FIG 2.
Flares, fatigue severity, and blood eosinophil counts in the intent-to-treat population. A, The cumulative number of flares over the study period. B, A Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence curve for probability of first flare over time. C, Adjusted mean change from baseline in fatigue severity.* D, The adjusted geometric mean blood eosinophil count over time. Vertical bars in Fig 2, B, C, and D, represent 95% CI. *Fatigue severity assessed on the basis of BFI item 3 recorded daily; for each patient the mean score over the 7 days before each time point was analyzed (range 0–10; higher score indicates worse fatigue severity; minimal clinically important difference for patients in HES not determined). SC, Subcutaneous; SCR, screening.

Comment in

  • IL-5-Antikörper reduziert HES-Schübe.
    Facharztmagazine R. Facharztmagazine R. MMW Fortschr Med. 2023 Feb;165(Suppl 1):49. doi: 10.1007/s15006-023-2382-5. MMW Fortschr Med. 2023. PMID: 36849780 German. No abstract available.

References

    1. Curtis C, Ogbogu P. Hypereosinophilic syndrome. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2016;50:240–51. - PubMed
    1. Ogbogu PU, Bochner BS, Butterfield JH, Gleich GJ, Huss-Marp J, Kahn JE, et al. Hypereosinophilic syndrome: a multicenter, retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and response to therapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124: 1319–25.e3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shomali W, Gotlib J. World Health Organization-defined eosinophilic disorders: 2019 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management. Am J Hematol 2019;94:1149–67. - PubMed
    1. Whitehouse MW. Anti-inflammatory glucocorticoid drugs: reflections after 60 years. Inflammopharmacology 2011;19:1–19. - PubMed
    1. Kahn JE, Groh M, Lefevre G. (A critical appraisal of) classification of hypereosinophilic disorders. Front Med (Lausanne) 2017;4:216. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Associated data