Long-acting implantable corticosteroid matrix for chronic rhinosinusitis: Results of LANTERN Phase 2 randomized controlled study

Anders Cervin, Joanne Rimmer, Agnieszka Wrobel, Yogen Abelak, Lindsay Brayton, Yina Kuang, Anders Cervin, Joanne Rimmer, Agnieszka Wrobel, Yogen Abelak, Lindsay Brayton, Yina Kuang

Abstract

Background: Topical steroids are first-line treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but fail to provide adequate symptom control for all patients. Designed for medical treatment failures, LYR-210 is an implantable matrix that locally elutes mometasone furoate to inflamed sinonasal tissue for up to 24 weeks in CRS patients. In an open-label phase 1 study, LYR-210 demonstrated clinically relevant improvement in the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Safety and efficacy of LYR-210 in CRS were evaluated in the LANTERN Phase 2 study.

Methods: Sixty-seven surgically naive adult CRS patients who were inadequately controlled by previous medical management and seeking an alternative treatment enrolled in a multicenter, blinded, controlled, dose-ranging study. Patients had moderate-to-severe disease based on SNOT-22 and composite 7-day average scores of the 4 cardinal CRS symptoms (4CS), with diagnosis confirmed by nasal endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to saline irrigation-only control or bilateral in-office administration of LYR-210 (2500 μg) or LYR-210 (7500 μg). Safety and efficacy were evaluated over 24 weeks.

Results: Both LYR-210 doses were safe and well-tolerated over the 24-week treatment period. LYR-210 demonstrated rapid and durable dose-dependent symptom improvement based on 4CS and SNOT-22, with LYR-210 (7500 μg) achieving statistical significance as early as 8 weeks and out to 24 weeks compared with control. LYR-210 (7500 μg) reduced rescue treatment use and radiographic ethmoid opacification at week 24.

Conclusions: LYR-210 is the first implantable sinonasal treatment to achieve up to 24 weeks of benefit from a single administration in surgically naive CRS patients with and without nasal polyps.

Keywords: chronic sinusitis; local drug delivery; mometasone furoate; nasal polyps; sinus procedure; surgically naive.

© 2021 The Authors. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy and American Rhinologic Society.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
LYR‐210 matrix self‐expands from a constrained state when deployed from an applicator.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
LANTERN Phase 2 study design schematic.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Disposition of patients (CONSORT) diagram. ITT = intention to treat.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Patient symptom improvement in nasal blockage, facial pain/pressure, and nasal discharge. Mean change from baseline (CFBL) in the 7‐day average score in (A) nasal blockage, (B) facial pain/pressure, and (C) nasal discharge (anterior/posterior). Data are presented as LSM. p < 0.05 considered statistically significant compared with control.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Patient‐reported loss‐of‐smell scores in patients with moderate‐to‐severe baseline anosmia. Mean change from baseline (CFBL) in the 7‐day average score in loss of smell for patients with moderate‐to‐severe baseline anosmia (≥2 baseline score in loss of sense of smell). Patients per group: LYR‐210 (7500 μg), n= 15; LYR‐210 (2500 μg), n = 20; and control, n = 20. Data are presented as LSM.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Patient symptom improvement as measured by composite score of (A) 4 cardinal symptoms (4CS) and (B) 3 cardinal symptoms (3CS). Mean changes from baseline (CFBL) in 7‐day average score in 4CS include nasal blockage, facial pain/pressure, nasal discharge (anterior/posterior), and loss of smell. For 3CS, these include nasal blockage, facial pain/pressure, and nasal discharge (anterior/posterior). Data are presented as LSM. p < 0.05 considered statistically significant compared with control.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Patient symptom improvement as measured by SNOT‐22. (A) Mean change from baseline (CFBL) in SNOT‐22 total score. Data presented as LSM. p < 0.05 considered statistically significant compared with control. (B) Percentages of patients administered bilateral LYR‐210 (2500 μg), bilateral LYR‐210 (7500 μg), or control who achieved minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in SNOT‐22 total score at week 24. (C) Percentages of patients with nasal polyps vs without nasal polyps administered bilateral LYR‐210 (2500 μg), bilateral LYR‐210 (7500 μg), or control who achieved MCID in SNOT‐22 total score at week 24.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Reduction in ethmoid sinus opacification as measured by bilateral Zinreich MRI scores. Mean change from baseline (CFBL) in the bilateral ethmoid Zinreich score (composite score of anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid Zinreich scores) at 24 weeks. Data are presented as means. p < 0.05 considered statistically significant compared with control.
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
Time to first rescue treatment use over 24 weeks. An event is when rescue treatment was used. Patients who did not achieve the event were censored at the end of treatment date or at the early termination date. Use of rescue treatment over the 24‐week treatment period was as follows: LYR‐210 (7500 μg), 1 patient; LYR‐210 (2500 μg), 2 patients; and saline irrigation control, 7 patients.

References

    1. Tan BK, Kern RC, Schleimer RP, Schwartz BS. Chronic rhinosinusitis: the unrecognized epidemic. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188:1275‐1277.
    1. Tomassen P, Vandeplas G, Van Zele T, et al. Inflammatory endotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis based on cluster analysis of biomarkers. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137:1449‐1456. e4.
    1. Tan BK, Min JY, Hulse KE. Acquired immunity in chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2017;17:49.
    1. Stevens WW, Peters AT, Tan BK, et al. Associations between inflammatory endotypes and clinical presentations in chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7:2812‐2820. e3.
    1. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2020. Rhinology. 2020;58(suppl S29):1‐464.
    1. Orlandi RR, Kingdom TT, Smith TL, et al. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021;11:213‐739.
    1. Moeller W, Schuschnig U, Meyer G, et al. Ventilation and aerosolized drug delivery to the paranasal sinuses using pulsating airflow—a preliminary study. Rhinology. 2009;47:405‐412.
    1. Nabi S, Rotenberg BW, Vukin I, Payton K, Bureau Y. Nasal spray adherence after sinus surgery: problems and predictors. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;41(suppl 1):S49‐55.
    1. Young LC, Stow NW, Zhou L, Douglas RG. Efficacy of medical therapy in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Allergy Rhinol. 2012;3:e8‐e12.
    1. Schaitkin B, May M, Shapiro A, Fucci M, Mester SJ. Endoscopic sinus surgery: 4‐year follow‐up on the first 100 patients. Laryngoscope. 1993;103:1117‐1120.
    1. Sharma U, Concagh D, Core L, et al. The development of bioresorbable composite polymeric implants with high mechanical strength. Nat Mater. 2018;17:96‐103.
    1. Douglas RG, Psaltis AJ, Rimmer J, Kuruvilla T, Cervin A, Kuang Y. Phase 1 clinical study to assess the safety of a novel drug delivery system providing long‐term topical steroid therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9:378‐387.
    1. Orlandi RR, Kingdom TT, Hwang PH. International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: rhinosinusitis executive summary. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(suppl 1):S3‐21.
    1. Hopkins C, Gillett S, Slack R, Lund VJ, Browne JP. Psychometric validity of the 22‐item Sinonasal Outcome Test. Clin Otolaryngol. 2009;34:447‐454.
    1. Zinreich SJ. Imaging for staging of rhinosinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2004;193:19‐23.
    1. Likness MM, Pallanch JF, Sherris DA, Kita H, Mashtare TL Jr, Ponikau JU . Computed tomography scans as an objective measure of disease severity in chronic rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;150:305‐311.
    1. Toma S, Hopkins C. Stratification of SNOT‐22 scores into mild, moderate or severe and relationship with other subjective instruments. Rhinology. 2016;54:129‐133.
    1. Zitt M, Kosoglou T, Hubbell J. Mometasone furoate nasal spray: a review of safety and systemic effects. Drug Saf. 2007;30:317‐326.
    1. Marple BF, Smith TL, Han JK, et al. Advance II: A prospective, randomized study assessing safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable steroid‐releasing sinus implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:1004‐1011.
    1. Kern RC, Stolovitzky JP, Silvers SL, et al. A phase 3 trial of mometasone furoate sinus implants for chronic sinusitis with recurrent nasal polyps. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018;8:471‐481.
    1. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health‐related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582‐592.
    1. Soler ZM, Smith TL. Quality of life outcomes after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2010;43:605‐612, x.
    1. Phillips KM, Hoehle LP, Caradonna DS, Gray ST, Sedaghat AR. Determinants of noticeable symptom improvement despite sub‐MCID change in SNOT‐22 score after treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9:508‐513.
    1. Levy JM, Mace JC, Rudmik L, Soler ZM, Smith TL. Low 22‐item sinonasal outcome test scores in chronic rhinosinusitis: why do patients seek treatment? Laryngoscope. 2017;127:22‐28.
    1. Behera SK, Radhakrishnan ST, Swain S. Nasal irrigation using saline at room temperature or body temperature: which is more beneficial in chronic rhinosinusitis? International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery. 2019;5:1005–1008.
    1. Phillips KM, Hoehle LP, Caradonna DS, Gray ST, Sedaghat AR. Minimal clinically important difference for the 22‐item Sinonasal Outcome Test in medically managed patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2018;43:1328‐1334.
    1. Liang J, Lane AP. Topical drug delivery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep. 2013;1:51‐60.
    1. Illum L. Nasal drug delivery: new developments and strategies. Drug Discov Today. 2002;7:1184‐1189.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅