nabu.science
MethodologyAboutContact

 

  • Snapshot
  • Key Claims
  • Strengths & Limitations
  • Commentary
  • From the Authors
  • Author Note / Field Feedback
  • Dimension breakdown
  • Readiness
Report #NBU-532552F2·Framework v5.9·Pipeline v0.4·Evaluated 18 Sept 2026·OECD: 3.1 Basic medicine·Subfield: Genetics·Basis: Full text·Type: Case report or case series

Donidalorsen for Long-Term Prophylaxis of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks: Results from the OASISplus Open-Label Extension Cohort at Year 1.

Lumry et al.Lumry, Tachdjian, Craig et al.·2026·Journal of asthma and allergy·10.2147/jaa.s592079 ↗

Primary claim

From Weeks 0 to 52, reductions in mean HAE attack rate from OASIS-HAE baseline were 94% (Q4W) and 95% (Q8W)

Supported · large descriptive reductions in an uncontrolled rollover cohort without a concurrent comparator
In brief

One-year extension data strengthen donidalorsen’s durability and safety case, but the uncontrolled rollover design limits independent efficacy inference.

ReliabilityCaveats4 of 4 checks completeRead the entry ↓
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Donidalorsen, a prekallikrein-directed antisense oligonucleotide indicated for prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks in patients aged ≥12 years, demonstrated efficacy and acceptable safety in the phase 3, placebo-controlled OASIS-HAE trial (NCT05139810). Here, we report 1-year results from the corresponding open-label extension (OLE) cohort of the OASISplus study (NCT05392114).

METHODS: OASISplus included patients who rolled over from OASIS-HAE. Patients who received donidalorsen 80 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks (Q4W) in OASIS-HAE received donidalorsen Q4W in OASISplus. Patients who received donidalorsen 80 mg or placebo every 8 weeks (Q8W) in OASIS-HAE received donidalorsen Q8W or Q4W, if not attack-free in the final 8 weeks of OASIS-HAE. The primary endpoint was safety (ie, incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]). Secondary endpoints included the monthly rate of HAE attacks and Angioedema Quality of Life (AE-QoL).

RESULTS: The OLE cohort included 83 patients (Q4W, n=69 [83%]; Q8W, n=14 [17%]). Of these, 75 (90.4%) completed Year 1, and 6 patients receiving donidalorsen Q8W in OASIS-HAE switched to the Q4W dosing group in the OLE. Median donidalorsen exposure was 392.3 days. From Weeks 0 to 52, reductions in mean HAE attack rate from OASIS-HAE baseline were 94% (Q4W) and 95% (Q8W), and patients reported clinically meaningful improvements in mean AE-QoL total score at Week 52 (Q4W, 28.1 points; Q8W, 26.7 points). Twenty-two (27%) patients reported treatment-related TEAEs; none were serious, and injection-site reactions were the most frequently reported.

CONCLUSION: Donidalorsen demonstrated sustained reductions in HAE attack rate, improvements in QoL, and an acceptable safety profile after 1 year of treatment.

Key Claims

Primary finding · Supported

From Weeks 0 to 52, reductions in mean HAE attack rate from OASIS-HAE baseline were 94% (Q4W) and 95% (Q8W)

large descriptive reductions in an uncontrolled rollover cohort without a concurrent comparator

Abstract, Results; Results, Efficacy
Quote verified
Secondary · Supported

Donidalorsen demonstrated sustained reductions in HAE attack rate, improvements in QoL, and an acceptable safety profile after 1 year of treatment.

consistent one-year outcomes, though the open-label design limits independent efficacy attribution

Abstract, Conclusion
Quote verified
Secondary · Supported

patients reported clinically meaningful improvements in mean AE-QoL total score at Week 52 (Q4W, 28.1 points; Q8W, 26.7 points)

validated scores exceeded the clinical threshold, but the uncontrolled comparison limits attribution

Abstract, Results; Results, QoL, Disease Control, and Treatment Satisfaction
Quote verified
Secondary · Well-supported

Twenty-two (27%) patients reported treatment-related TEAEs; none were serious, and injection-site reactions were the most frequently reported.

directly documented adverse-event counts and classifications in the full treated cohort

Abstract, Results; Results, Safety; Table 2
Quote verified

Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.

Strengths · Limitations

Strengths

#methodological rigour

Detailed one-year safety characterization

Table 2 reports adverse-event incidence, seriousness, severity, treatment relationship, and discontinuations, while the Safety section provides narratives for serious events and laboratory abnormalities.

↳ Results, Safety; Table 2

#contribution

Clinically relevant durability evidence

The study extends follow-up beyond the parent trial and reports attack rates, quality of life, disease control, treatment satisfaction, and median exposure through Year 1.

↳ Results, Efficacy; Results, QoL, Disease Control, and Treatment Satisfaction

#positioning

Limitations tied to interpretation

The Discussion identifies selection bias, racial homogeneity, the small Q8W subgroup, and the absence of a placebo comparator, including their implications for inference and generalisability.

↳ Discussion, Limitations

Limitations

#methodological rigour

No concurrent efficacy comparator

All Year-1 analyses are descriptive within an open-label rollover cohort, so the extension cannot independently separate treatment effects from selection, carryover, or temporal influences.

↳ Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis; Discussion, Limitations

#contribution

Sparse evidence for Q8W dosing

Only 14 participants received Q8W dosing, and eligibility for that schedule favored patients without recent breakthrough attacks, limiting regimen-specific conclusions.

↳ Results, Patients; Table 1; Discussion, paragraph 2 and Limitations

#application pathway

Limited demographic transferability

The cohort was 91.6% White and included only seven adolescents, restricting confidence across racial, ethnic, and age subgroups.

↳ Table 1; Discussion, Limitations

Does this match your read? Add your assessment ↓

Nabu Commentary

The one-year extension adds clinically relevant durability and safety observations to an established phase 3 program, but the advance remains incremental relative to the parent trial and earlier long-term extension evidence. Methods specify dosing transitions, endpoint definitions, descriptive analyses, and safety classification, with outcomes documented across Tables 1–2 and Figures 2–4. The principal interpretive constraint is the uncontrolled rollover design, which supports descriptive persistence while limiting independent causal efficacy inference, particularly in the 14-person Q8W group. Contextualization and limitation handling are substantive, although occasional terms such as “demonstrated” and “led to” are stronger than the extension design alone warrants.

Check another paper

Free · About 5 minutes · Research preview

Author Note / Field Feedback

Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.

Are you an author of this paper?

Dimension breakdown

Study Quality

Sound3.6

Confidence medium
Contribution
3.3

The study adds one-year safety, attack-rate, and quality-of-life observations beyond the 24-week parent trial. The contribution is clinically useful but incremental given the prior phase 3 and long-term phase 2 evidence.

Introduction, final paragraph; Results, Efficacy and Safety; Discussion, paragraphs 3–4

“Here, we report results from a prespecified interim analysis at 1 year in the OLE study.”

Methodological Rigour
3.7

The prospective extension defines dosing transitions, endpoints, analysis sets, exposure, and adverse-event grading in detail. Its uncontrolled rollover structure, selection risk, and small Q8W cohort limit efficacy and regimen-specific inference despite competent execution.

Materials and Methods, Study Treatment and Statistical Analysis; Table 2; Discussion, Limitations

“the lack of a placebo group comparator…prevents inferential statistics and may limit interpretation of the results.”

Reporting
3.6

The article follows a traceable methods-to-results structure and distinguishes descriptive analysis from formal inference. Some headline phrasing uses a stronger efficacy register than the uncontrolled extension independently supports, although the Conclusions and Limitations add appropriate qualification.

Abstract, Conclusion; Discussion, Limitations; Conclusions

“Donidalorsen demonstrated sustained reductions in HAE attack rate”

Positioning
3.7

The Discussion relates the findings to the parent phase 3 trial, phase 2 extension evidence, and available prophylactic options. It identifies demographic, subgroup, selection, and comparator limitations and generally carries them into the interpretation.

Introduction, paragraphs 3–4; Discussion, paragraphs 3–4 and Limitations

“OLE studies have a risk of selection bias”

Reliability

Caveats4 of 4 checks


Internal CoherenceClean

Participant disposition, exposure, efficacy denominators, and adverse-event totals reconcile across the abstract, Results, and Tables 1–2. The descriptive analysis matches the stated uncontrolled open-label design.

Research ConductNoted

Ethics approval and trial registration are declared, and the Data Availability Statement specifies conditions for access through Vivli. No conflict-of-interest disclosure statement appears in the supplied full text.

Flags: 3 declared / 5 total

Reference IntegrityClean

22 of 22 checkable references verified

28 references in manuscript 6 are books, websites or datasets — counted, but not index-checkable

References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.

Post-Publication RecordClean

No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).

Last checked: 17 Oct 2026

Sources: Crossref (incl. Retraction Watch) ✓

Readiness

Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.

Deployable

Donidalorsen is already approved, placing the evidence near clinical deployment rather than at an exploratory stage. The report adds longer-term trial follow-up but not comparative implementation evidence.

Introduction, paragraph 4; Conclusions

“these long-term results…add to the evidence supporting the efficacy and safety”

Report an issue →

AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.

Keep reading

Related evaluations

Other papers Nabu has evaluated blind, starting with the same field.

  1. Oral Sebetralstat for On-Demand Treatment of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks

    Riedl, Farkas, Aygören-Pürsün, et al. · 2024 · Clinical medicine

    Primary claim

    Oral sebetralstat provided faster times to the beginning of symptom relief, reduction in attack severity, and complete attack resolution than placebo.

    Well-supported
    Study quality
    Strong4.2
    Reliability
    No concerns
  2. Efficacy and Safety of Donidalorsen for Hereditary Angioedema

    Riedl, Tachdjian, Lumry, et al. · 2024 · Clinical medicine

    Primary claim

    Donidalorsen at a dose of 80 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 or 8 weeks significantly reduced the hereditary angioedema attack rate

    Supported
    Study quality
    Strong4.0
    Reliability
    Caveats
  3. CRISPR-Based Therapy for Hereditary Angioedema

    Cohn, Gurugama, Magerl, et al. · 2024 · Clinical medicine

    Primary claim

    NTLA-2002 administered in a single dose of 25 mg or 50 mg reduced angioedema attacks and led to robust and sustained reduction in total plasma kallikrein levels in patients with hereditary angioedema.

    Tentative
    Study quality
    Sound3.6
    Reliability
    Caveats

How the rubric works →