Ruconest Drug Information
Generic name: C1 ESTERASE INHIBITOR RECOMBINANT
Uses of Ruconest
is a C1 esterase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute attacks in adult and adolescent patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE). Limitation of Use: Effectiveness was not established in HAE patients with laryngeal attacks. RUCONEST is a C1 esterase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute attacks in adult and adolescent patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE). Limitation of Use: Effectiveness was not established in HAE patients with laryngeal attacks.
Dosage & Administration of Ruconest
| < 84 kg | 50 U per kg |
|---|---|
| ≥ 84 kg | 4200 U (2 vials) |
Side Effects of Ruconest
Clinical Trials Experience
Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, the adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may not reflect the rates observed in clinical practice. The RUCONEST clinical development program evaluated a combined total of 940 administrations in 236 subjects (symptomatic and non-symptomatic). In clinical studies, a total of 205 symptomatic HAE patients received treatment with RUCONEST for a combined total of 650 acute angioedema attacks. Among these HAE patients, 83 were treated for a single HAE attack and 122 were treated for multiple attacks.
Three randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were conducted in which 137 patients experiencing acute HAE attacks received RUCONEST (either an initial 50 U/kg or 100 U/kg body weight dose) or placebo (saline solution). Table 2 shows all adverse reactions (ARs) in the RCTs, compared with the placebo group. Table 2. Adverse reactions occurring In ≥ 2% of subjects in the three RCT studies MedDRA Preferred Term RUCONEST 100 U/kg (N=29) n (%) RUCONEST 50 U/kg* (N=66) n (%) Placebo** (N=47) n (%) Total number of patients with adverse reactions 4 (14%) 6 (9%) 13 (28%) Headache 3 (10%) 0 2 (4%) Sneezing 0 1 (2%) 0 Angioedema 1 (3%) 0 0 Erythema marginatum 0 1 (2%) 0 Skin burning sensation 0 1 (2%) 0 Back pain 0 2 (3%) 0 C-reactive protein increased 0 1 (2%) 0 Fibrin D-dimer increased 0 1 (2%) 0 Vertigo 1 (3%) 0 0 Procedural headache 0 1 (2%) 0 Lipoma 0 1 (2%) 0 * Includes 5 patients who received an additional 50 U/kg dose MedDRA: Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 15.0. ** Events only occurring in placebo patients are not listed. Integrated RCT and Open-Label Extension (OLE) Studies In a total of seven RCT and OLE studies, 205 patients experiencing acute HAE attacks were treated with RUCONEST for a total of 650 HAE attacks.
Included in this population were 124 patients who were treated at the 50 U/kg dosage strength for one or more attacks. Table 3 shows adverse reactions in ≥ 2% of patients in any RUCONEST group for the integrated dataset combining all seven RCT and OLE studies in patients experiencing acute HAE attacks. Table 3. Adverse reactions in the seven RCT and OLE studies occurring ≥ 2% of RUCONEST-treated patients (all doses), irrespective of causality MedDRA Preferred Term All RUCONEST doses* N=205 n (%) Headache 19 (9%) Nausea 5 (2%) Diarrhea 5 (2%) * RUCONEST doses: doses up to 100 U/kg MedDRA: Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 15.0. Immunogenicity As with all therapeutic proteins, there is potential for immunogenicity.
Pre- and post-exposure samples from 205 HAE patients treated for 650 acute attacks with RUCONEST were tested for the antibodies against plasma-derived C1INH or rhC1INH and for antibodies against host-related impurities (HRI). Testing was performed prior to and after treatment of a first attack and subsequent repeated attacks at 7, 22 or 28, and 90 days after RUCONEST treatment. Prior to the first exposure to RUCONEST, the frequency of anti-C1INH antibodies varied from 1.2% to 1.6% of samples. After the first exposure, the frequency of anti-C1INH antibodies varied from 0.6% to 1.0% of samples tested.
After repeated exposures, the frequency of anti-C1INH antibodies varied from 0.5 to 2.2% of samples tested. The frequency of anti-HRI antibodies was 1.0% in pre-exposure samples, and after the first exposure varied from 3.5% to 4.6%. After repeated exposure, the frequency of anti-HRI antibodies varied from 5.7% to 17% of samples. At least 10% of subjects formed a specific antibody response to RUCONEST after five treated HAE attacks.
No anti-C1INH neutralizing antibodies were detected. Observed anti-C1INH and anti-HRI antibodies were not associated with adverse clinical findings. The detection of antibody formation is highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the assay.
Additionally, the observed incidence of antibody (including neutralizing antibody) positivity in an assay may be influenced by several factors including assay methodology, sample handling, timing of sample collection, concomitant medications, and underlying disease. For these reasons, comparison of the incidence of antibodies to RUCONEST with the incidence of antibodies to other products may be misleading. Postmarketing Experience Because postmarketing reporting of adverse reactions is voluntary and from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate the frequency of these reactions or establish a causal relationship to product exposure.
Adverse reactions in HAE patients receiving RUCONEST include abdominal pain and rash.
Warnings & Cautions for Ruconest
Hypersensitivity Severe hypersensitivity reactions may occur.
The signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions may include hives, generalized urticaria, tightness of the chest, wheezing, hypotension, and/or anaphylaxis during or after injection of RUCONEST. Should symptoms occur, discontinue RUCONEST and institute appropriate treatment. Because hypersensitivity reactions may have symptoms similar to HAE attacks, treatment methods should be carefully considered.
Thromboembolic Events Serious arterial and venous thromboembolic (TE) events have been reported
at the recommended dose of plasma derived C1 esterase inhibitor products in patients with risk factors. Risk factors may include the presence of an indwelling venous catheter/access device, prior history of thrombosis, underlying atherosclerosis, use of oral contraceptives or certain androgens, morbid obesity, and immobility. Monitor patients with known risk factors for TE events during and after RUCONEST administration.
Pregnancy Safety for Ruconest
Pregnancy Risk Summary There are no adequate and well-controlled studies of RUCONEST in pregnant women. In the U.S. general population, regardless of drug exposure, available data suggest that major birth defects occur in 2 to 4% of the general population and miscarriage occurs in 15 to 20% of clinically recognized pregnancies. Data Human Data Limited available postmarketing safety data with RUCONEST use in pregnant women do not indicate any adverse effects in this population.
In a retrospective case collection study, 14 pregnant women aged 17 to 37 years with HAE received RUCONEST at 50 U/kg (max 4200 U) via intravenous administration for treatment of acute atttacks or for prophylaxis during pregnancy. For all 14 women in this study, delivery at full term with the births of healthy babies occurred without complications. No adverse events related to RUCONEST treatment were reported during the pregnancy period. 1,2 However these data cannot definitely establish the absence of any risk because of the small sample size and non-randomized study design.
Animal Data Embryo toxicity with 625 U/kg of RUCONEST (12.5 times the human dose) was tested after intravenous dosing of pregnant rats in a segment II (embryofetal toxicity) study design. There were no significant outcomes from this study. Dosing of pregnant rabbits with 625 U/kg during organogenesis showed no drug-related adverse effects on either the developing fetuses or mothers.
Pediatric Use of Ruconest
Pediatric Use The safety and efficacy of RUCONEST were evaluated in 17 adolescent patients (13-17 years of age) treated for 52 HAE attacks. Eight out of 17 (47%) adolescent patients experienced adverse reactions. No serious adverse reactions were reported in these patients.
The most common reactions (occurring in at least 2 patients) were: abdominal pain, headache, and oropharyngeal pain.
Contraindications for Ruconest
is contraindicated in patients with a history of allergy to rabbits or rabbit-derived products. RUCONEST is contraindicated in patients with a history of life-threatening immediate hypersensitivity reactions to C1 esterase inhibitor preparations, including anaphylaxis. Known or suspected allergy to rabbits and rabbit-derived products.
History of immediate hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, to C1 esterase inhibitor preparations.
Clinical Studies of Ruconest
The safety and efficacy of RUCONEST for treatment of acute angioedema attacks in patients with HAE was established in Study 1, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) which included an open-label extension (OLE) phase; and supported by the results of 2 additional RCTs and 2 additional OLE studies. Randomized, Controlled Trials The safety and efficacy of RUCONEST in the treatment of acute attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema were demonstrated in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study (Study 1). Supportive evidence of effectiveness is provided by two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (Studies 2 and 3). Evidence for the efficacy of repeat treatment of HAE attacks is provided from the open-label extensions (OLE) of each of the three randomized studies. Study 1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that included an open-label extension (OLE) phase to assess the efficacy and safety of RUCONEST 50 U/kg in the treatment of acute attacks in patients with HAE. Seventy-five adults and adolescent patients were randomized (3:2) to receive RUCONEST 50 U/kg (N = 44) or placebo (N = 31). Patients ranged in age from 17 to 69 years of age; 63% were female and 37% were male; 96% were Caucasian.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to beginning of relief of symptoms, assessed using patient-reported responses to two questions from a Treatment Effect Questionnaire (TEQ). The TEQ required patients to assess the severity of their attack symptoms at each affected anatomic location, using a seven-point scale (“much worse” to “much better” ), and whether their symptoms had begun to decrease notably since receiving the study medication (“yes” or “no” ). To achieve the primary endpoint, a patient had to have a positive response to both questions along with persistence of improvement at the next assessment time (i.e., the same or better response). Rescue treatment with RUCONEST was available for patients who did not experience the beginning of relief at 4 hours after study drug administration, or earlier to patients who experienced life-threatening oropharyngeal-laryngeal angioedema symptoms. If a patient received a medication which could have impacted the efficacy evaluation or open-label RUCONEST as rescue medication, prior to achieving beginning of relief of symptoms, the time to beginning of relief of symptoms was censored at the last assessed time prior to medication use. In the RCT phase, the median time to beginning of relief of symptoms was statistically significantly shorter in patients treated with RUCONEST 50 U/kg compared with patients treated with placebo as assessed by the TEQ; ( Table 6, Figure 1). Table 6. Time to Beginning of Relief of Symptoms based on questionnaire based on TEQ (Study 1, RCT Phase) Time to Beginning of Relief of Symptoms, minutes RUCONEST 50 U/kg N=44 Placebo N=31 Values that are not estimable are displayed as ‘- ’. Median 90 152 95% CI (93, -) Log-rank p-value 0.031 Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier Plot of Time to Beginning of Relief of Symptoms (Study 1, RCT Phase) Among several planned subgroup analyses, descriptive statistics showed that in US patients a median time to beginning of relief of symptoms with persistence at the primary attack location (based on TEQ) was 98 minutes for those receiving RUCONEST and 90 minutes for those receiving placebo.
The hazard ratio for time to the beginning of relief of symptoms in this subpopulation was 1.20 for patients receiving RUCONEST as compared with patients receiving placebo. Non-US patients receiving RUCONEST had a median time to beginning of relief of 90 minutes and non-US patients receiving placebo had a median time to beginning of relief of 334 minutes. The hazard ratio for the non-US subgroup was 4.82 for patients receiving RUCONEST compared to placebo.
Examination of gender subgroups suggested a larger treatment effect in men than women. For women receiving RUCONEST, the median time to beginning of relief was 113 minutes, and for women receiving placebo, the median time to beginning of relief was 105 minutes. The hazard ratio for women receiving RUCONEST versus placebo was 1.22. For men receiving RUCONEST, the median time to beginning of relief was 75 minutes, and for men receiving placebo, the median time to beginning of relief was 480 minutes.
The hazard ratio for men receiving RUCONEST versus placebo was 3.94. No plausible biological explanations for the regional or gender subgroup effects were found. One possible explanation is a larger-than-expected placebo response among US women. None of the subgroup confidence intervals were adjusted for multiplicity.
Because almost all of the patients were Caucasian and were between 18 and 65 years of age, race and age subgroup analyses were not considered meaningful. Among patients who achieved relief within 4 hours, there were 4 (27%) patients in the placebo group who had a relapse of their symptoms within 24 hours as compared with 1 (3%) in the RUCONEST group. The proportion of patients who received RUCONEST as rescue medication was greater in patients randomized to placebo (13 of 31 patients; 42%) than in patients randomized to RUCONEST (5 of 44 patients; 11%). The efficacy of RUCONEST 50 U/kg for different anatomical locations of HAE attacks is summarized in Table 7. Table 7. Proportion of patients who achieved relief within 4 hours, by attack type * Life-threatening laryngeal attacks were excluded from the randomized-controlled phase of Study 1 Attack Type * RUCONEST 50 U/kg n/N (%) Placebo n/N (%) Abdominal 14/16 (88%) 7/12 (58%) Facial 3/6 (50%) 0/2 (0%) Peripheral (extremities) 17/20 (85%) 7/14 (50%) In the OLE phase of Study 1, patients were treated with open-label RUCONEST 50 U/kg for repeated attacks of HAE. Forty-four patients who completed the RCT phase were enrolled into the OLE phase where they were treated for a total of 170 attacks.
In this phase, the median time to beginning of relief of symptoms was 75 minutes, consistent with the results of the RCT phase of the study ( Table 6 ). Results were also comparable across attacks, suggesting that the efficacy of RUCONEST 50 U/kg was maintained over repeated attacks of HAE. In the OLE phase of Study 1, 5/170 (3%) attacks received a second dose of RUCONEST 50 U/kg. In Study 2 (North American RCT), patients were randomized to receive a single administration of either RUCONEST 50 U/kg (N=12), RUCONEST 100 U/kg (N=13) or placebo (N=13). Patients ranged in age from 17 to 66 years of age; 74% were female and 26% were male; and 92% were Caucasian. In Study 3 (European RCT), patients were randomized to receive a single administration of either RUCONEST 100 U/kg (N=16) or placebo (N=16). Patients ranged in age from 17 to 71 years of age: 53% were female and 47% were male; and 100% were Caucasian.
Patients scored their symptoms using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0-100 mm. A VAS decrease of > 20 mm compared with baseline with persistence of the improvement at two consecutive time points was considered the onset of relief in Studies 2 and 3. In both Study 2 and 3, the efficacy of RUCONEST in the treatment of acute angioedema attacks was demonstrated by significantly shorter times to beginning of relief of symptoms based on the VAS (Figure 2). Figure 2. Mean VAS scores over time with 95% Confidence Intervals (Study 2 and 3, RCT Phase) In open-label extension studies of Study 2 and 3, 119 patients were treated with RUCONEST for a total of 362 acute angioedema attacks. As observed in Study 1, the efficacy of RUCONEST was maintained for repeat attacks. figure1 figure-two
Drug information sourced from the FDA. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Consult a healthcare professional before making any medication decisions.
Ready to save on Ruconest?
Compare prescription prices at over 70,000 pharmacies and start saving today—no enrollment required.
Compare Ruconest Prices