Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Although long-term prophylaxis (LTP) reduces attack frequency in hereditary angioedema, patients may experience breakthrough attacks. Oral sebetralstat demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy compared with placebo in the randomized phase 3 KONFIDENT trial (NCT05259917), including in patients receiving LTP. The safety and effectiveness of sebetralstat in participants receiving LTP are being assessed in the KONFIDENT-S open-label extension study (NCT05505916). Objective: This interim analysis of the KONFIDENT-S study evaluated long-term safety and effectiveness of oral sebetralstat 600 mg for attacks of hereditary angioedema with C1-inhibitor deficiency in participants receiving LTP with lanadelumab, berotralstat, or C1 inhibitor. Methods: Efficacy end points included times to beginning of symptom relief, reduction in severity, and complete attack resolution. Results: As of September 14, 2024, 35 participants receiving LTP experienced a mean ± standard deviation of 1.7 ± 1.5 attacks per month and treated 382 attacks with sebetralstat (1.3 ± 1.1 sebetralstat-treated attacks per month). Median (interquartile range) time from attack recognition to sebetralstat administration was 6 (1-40) minutes; time to beginning of symptom relief was 1.3 (0.8 to 3.8) hours, time to reduction in severity was 4.2 (1.3 to >12) hours, and time to complete attack resolution was 14.8 (4.6 to >24) hours. Effectiveness was similar for participants receiving berotralstat, lanadelumab, or C1 inhibitor. No serious or severe treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Sebetralstat was well tolerated and enabled early on-demand treatment of attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema with C1-inhibitor deficiency receiving LTP. Treatment of breakthrough attacks with sebetralstat resulted in rapid symptom relief, reduction in attack severity, and complete attack resolution, regardless of LTP mechanism of action.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kinaciyan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: