Anemia

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of eltrombopag (Promacta) for patients severe aplastic anemia (SAA), Novartis announced Nov. 16.

The agency’s move means that eltrombopag, a synthetic thrombopoietin-receptor agonist, is now approved for use in combination with standard immunosuppressive therapy as first-line treatment for adults, and pediatric patients aged 2 and older with SAA. The drug received breakthrough therapy designation and priority review for this indication, the company said in a press release.

In addition, eltrombopag is FDA-approved for SAA patients who have had an insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy, those with chronic immune thrombocytopenia who have had an insufficient response to other treatments, and those with thrombocytopenia and with chronic hepatitis C infection.

The expanded approval is based on results of a phase 1-2 trial (NCT01623167), which were published last year (N Eng J Med. 2017 Apr 20;376[16]:1540-50). The trial included 153 previously untreated SAA patients aged 2 and older. The patients received eltrombopag in combination with horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine.

The starting dose of eltrombopag in the trial was 150 mg once daily for patients aged 12 and older (75 mg for East and Southeast Asians), 75 mg once daily for patients aged 6 to 11 (37.5 mg for East and Southeast Asians), and 2.5 mg/kg once daily for patients aged 2 to 5 (1.25 mg/kg for East and Southeast Asians).

Patients were divided into three cohorts with different dosing schedules. The recommended schedule from the third cohort (n = 92) was eltrombopag from day 1 to month 6, plus horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine. All patients in this cohort were eligible to receive a low dose of cyclosporine for an additional 18 months if they achieved a hematologic response at 6 months.

Among the patients treated at the recommended dosing schedule, the 6-month overall response rate was 79%, and the complete response rate was 44%. The median duration of both overall and complete response was 24.3 months.

The most common adverse events in these patients were increases in ALT (29%), AST (17%), and blood bilirubin (17%). Also, rash (8%), and skin discoloration, including hyperpigmentation (5%), were cited as adverse events.

Updated results from the trial are available in the prescribing information for eltrombopag. In most countries outside of the United States, the drug is marketed as Revolade.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of eltrombopag (Promacta) for patients severe aplastic anemia (SAA), Novartis announced Nov. 16.

The agency’s move means that eltrombopag, a synthetic thrombopoietin-receptor agonist, is now approved for use in combination with standard immunosuppressive therapy as first-line treatment for adults, and pediatric patients aged 2 and older with SAA. The drug received breakthrough therapy designation and priority review for this indication, the company said in a press release.

In addition, eltrombopag is FDA-approved for SAA patients who have had an insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy, those with chronic immune thrombocytopenia who have had an insufficient response to other treatments, and those with thrombocytopenia and with chronic hepatitis C infection.

The expanded approval is based on results of a phase 1-2 trial (NCT01623167), which were published last year (N Eng J Med. 2017 Apr 20;376[16]:1540-50). The trial included 153 previously untreated SAA patients aged 2 and older. The patients received eltrombopag in combination with horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine.

The starting dose of eltrombopag in the trial was 150 mg once daily for patients aged 12 and older (75 mg for East and Southeast Asians), 75 mg once daily for patients aged 6 to 11 (37.5 mg for East and Southeast Asians), and 2.5 mg/kg once daily for patients aged 2 to 5 (1.25 mg/kg for East and Southeast Asians).

Patients were divided into three cohorts with different dosing schedules. The recommended schedule from the third cohort (n = 92) was eltrombopag from day 1 to month 6, plus horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine. All patients in this cohort were eligible to receive a low dose of cyclosporine for an additional 18 months if they achieved a hematologic response at 6 months.

Among the patients treated at the recommended dosing schedule, the 6-month overall response rate was 79%, and the complete response rate was 44%. The median duration of both overall and complete response was 24.3 months.

The most common adverse events in these patients were increases in ALT (29%), AST (17%), and blood bilirubin (17%). Also, rash (8%), and skin discoloration, including hyperpigmentation (5%), were cited as adverse events.

Updated results from the trial are available in the prescribing information for eltrombopag. In most countries outside of the United States, the drug is marketed as Revolade.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of eltrombopag (Promacta) for patients severe aplastic anemia (SAA), Novartis announced Nov. 16.

The agency’s move means that eltrombopag, a synthetic thrombopoietin-receptor agonist, is now approved for use in combination with standard immunosuppressive therapy as first-line treatment for adults, and pediatric patients aged 2 and older with SAA. The drug received breakthrough therapy designation and priority review for this indication, the company said in a press release.

In addition, eltrombopag is FDA-approved for SAA patients who have had an insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy, those with chronic immune thrombocytopenia who have had an insufficient response to other treatments, and those with thrombocytopenia and with chronic hepatitis C infection.

The expanded approval is based on results of a phase 1-2 trial (NCT01623167), which were published last year (N Eng J Med. 2017 Apr 20;376[16]:1540-50). The trial included 153 previously untreated SAA patients aged 2 and older. The patients received eltrombopag in combination with horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine.

The starting dose of eltrombopag in the trial was 150 mg once daily for patients aged 12 and older (75 mg for East and Southeast Asians), 75 mg once daily for patients aged 6 to 11 (37.5 mg for East and Southeast Asians), and 2.5 mg/kg once daily for patients aged 2 to 5 (1.25 mg/kg for East and Southeast Asians).

Patients were divided into three cohorts with different dosing schedules. The recommended schedule from the third cohort (n = 92) was eltrombopag from day 1 to month 6, plus horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine. All patients in this cohort were eligible to receive a low dose of cyclosporine for an additional 18 months if they achieved a hematologic response at 6 months.

Among the patients treated at the recommended dosing schedule, the 6-month overall response rate was 79%, and the complete response rate was 44%. The median duration of both overall and complete response was 24.3 months.

The most common adverse events in these patients were increases in ALT (29%), AST (17%), and blood bilirubin (17%). Also, rash (8%), and skin discoloration, including hyperpigmentation (5%), were cited as adverse events.

Updated results from the trial are available in the prescribing information for eltrombopag. In most countries outside of the United States, the drug is marketed as Revolade.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Photo courtesy of GSK

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approved use of eltrombopag (Promacta®) in severe aplastic anemia (SAA).

Eltrombopag is now approved for use in combination with standard immunosuppressive therapy as first-line treatment for adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older with SAA.

Eltrombopag received breakthrough therapy designation and priority review for this indication.

Eltrombopag is also FDA-approved for SAA patients who have had an insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy, for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia who have had an insufficient response to other treatments, and to treat thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

The FDA’s latest approval of eltrombopag is based on results from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01623167), which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in April 2017.

Updated results from the trial are available in the prescribing information for eltrombopag.

The trial included 153 previously untreated SAA patients age 2 and older. The patients received eltrombopag in combination with horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine.

The starting dose of eltrombopag was:

• 150 mg once daily for patients age 12 and older (75 mg for East and Southeast Asians)
• 75 mg once daily for patients ages 6 to 11 (37.5 mg for East and Southeast Asians)
• 5 mg/kg once daily for patients ages 2 to 5 (1.25 mg/kg for East and Southeast Asians).

Patients were divided into three cohorts with different dosing schedules.

The recommended schedule, from the third cohort (n=92), was eltrombopag from day 1 to month 6, plus horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine. All patients in this cohort were eligible to receive a low dose of cyclosporine for an additional 18 months if they achieved a hematologic response at 6 months.

Among the patients treated at the recommended dosing schedule, the 6-month overall response rate was 79%, and the complete response rate was 44%.

The median duration of both overall and complete response was 24.3 months.

The most common adverse events in these patients were ALT increase (29%), AST increase (17%), blood bilirubin increase (17%), rash (8%), and skin discoloration including hyperpigmentation (5%).

Eltrombopag is a product of Novartis.

Photo courtesy of GSK

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approved use of eltrombopag (Promacta®) in severe aplastic anemia (SAA).

Eltrombopag is now approved for use in combination with standard immunosuppressive therapy as first-line treatment for adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older with SAA.

Eltrombopag received breakthrough therapy designation and priority review for this indication.

Eltrombopag is also FDA-approved for SAA patients who have had an insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy, for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia who have had an insufficient response to other treatments, and to treat thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

The FDA’s latest approval of eltrombopag is based on results from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01623167), which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in April 2017.

Updated results from the trial are available in the prescribing information for eltrombopag.

The trial included 153 previously untreated SAA patients age 2 and older. The patients received eltrombopag in combination with horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine.

The starting dose of eltrombopag was:

• 150 mg once daily for patients age 12 and older (75 mg for East and Southeast Asians)
• 75 mg once daily for patients ages 6 to 11 (37.5 mg for East and Southeast Asians)
• 5 mg/kg once daily for patients ages 2 to 5 (1.25 mg/kg for East and Southeast Asians).

Patients were divided into three cohorts with different dosing schedules.

The recommended schedule, from the third cohort (n=92), was eltrombopag from day 1 to month 6, plus horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine. All patients in this cohort were eligible to receive a low dose of cyclosporine for an additional 18 months if they achieved a hematologic response at 6 months.

Among the patients treated at the recommended dosing schedule, the 6-month overall response rate was 79%, and the complete response rate was 44%.

The median duration of both overall and complete response was 24.3 months.

The most common adverse events in these patients were ALT increase (29%), AST increase (17%), blood bilirubin increase (17%), rash (8%), and skin discoloration including hyperpigmentation (5%).

Eltrombopag is a product of Novartis.

Photo courtesy of GSK

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approved use of eltrombopag (Promacta®) in severe aplastic anemia (SAA).

Eltrombopag is now approved for use in combination with standard immunosuppressive therapy as first-line treatment for adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older with SAA.

Eltrombopag received breakthrough therapy designation and priority review for this indication.

Eltrombopag is also FDA-approved for SAA patients who have had an insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy, for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia who have had an insufficient response to other treatments, and to treat thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

The FDA’s latest approval of eltrombopag is based on results from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01623167), which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in April 2017.

Updated results from the trial are available in the prescribing information for eltrombopag.

The trial included 153 previously untreated SAA patients age 2 and older. The patients received eltrombopag in combination with horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine.

The starting dose of eltrombopag was:

• 150 mg once daily for patients age 12 and older (75 mg for East and Southeast Asians)
• 75 mg once daily for patients ages 6 to 11 (37.5 mg for East and Southeast Asians)
• 5 mg/kg once daily for patients ages 2 to 5 (1.25 mg/kg for East and Southeast Asians).

Patients were divided into three cohorts with different dosing schedules.

The recommended schedule, from the third cohort (n=92), was eltrombopag from day 1 to month 6, plus horse antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine. All patients in this cohort were eligible to receive a low dose of cyclosporine for an additional 18 months if they achieved a hematologic response at 6 months.

Among the patients treated at the recommended dosing schedule, the 6-month overall response rate was 79%, and the complete response rate was 44%.

The median duration of both overall and complete response was 24.3 months.

The most common adverse events in these patients were ALT increase (29%), AST increase (17%), blood bilirubin increase (17%), rash (8%), and skin discoloration including hyperpigmentation (5%).

Eltrombopag is a product of Novartis.

Micrograph showing MDS

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Lupin’s decitabine product, a generic version of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s Dacogen, to treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Lupin’s decitabine for injection (50 mg, single-dose vial) is approved to treat patients with intermediate-1, intermediate-2, and high-risk MDS.

This includes previously treated, untreated, de novo, and secondary MDS of all French-American-British subtypes—refractory anemia, refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation, and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.

Micrograph showing MDS

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Lupin’s decitabine product, a generic version of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s Dacogen, to treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Lupin’s decitabine for injection (50 mg, single-dose vial) is approved to treat patients with intermediate-1, intermediate-2, and high-risk MDS.

This includes previously treated, untreated, de novo, and secondary MDS of all French-American-British subtypes—refractory anemia, refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation, and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.

Micrograph showing MDS

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Lupin’s decitabine product, a generic version of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s Dacogen, to treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Lupin’s decitabine for injection (50 mg, single-dose vial) is approved to treat patients with intermediate-1, intermediate-2, and high-risk MDS.

This includes previously treated, untreated, de novo, and secondary MDS of all French-American-British subtypes—refractory anemia, refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation, and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.

Image by Andre E.X. Brown

New research suggests a scoring system can predict the risk of thrombosis in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who are taking anticoagulants.

Researchers tested their Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia (TH2) risk assessment score in a small group of ITP patients on anticoagulants, and the score identified all seven patients who developed thrombosis.

The researchers also found that patients’ TH2 scores changed quickly—within a matter of days—which suggests they should be re-evaluated for thrombosis risk frequently.

Amaris K. Balitsky, MD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and her colleagues detailed this research in Blood.

About the score

To develop the TH2 score, the researchers conducted a review of the literature and existing tools used to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The resulting score consists of two thrombosis items and two bleeding items.

The thrombosis items are:

• High thrombotic risk, which includes patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score greater than five; unprovoked, recurrent, or cancer-associated thrombosis; or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome
• Receipt of ITP therapies known to increase the risk of thrombosis in the previous 14 days or splenectomy in the previous 30 days.

The score’s bleeding items are:

• Platelet count less than 20 x 10⁹/L
• Major bleeding (grade 2 bleeding that does not involve the skin) observed at a clinical encounter.

Each thrombosis item is assigned a score of +1, and each bleeding item is assigned a score of -1. A positive score or score of 0 suggests a net increased risk of thrombosis, and a negative score suggests a net increased risk of bleeding.

Patient population

The researchers tested the TH2 score in patients enrolled in the McMaster ITP Registry from 2010 to 2017.

There were 314 patients enrolled, but only 13 were receiving anticoagulation and had a platelet count less than 50 x 10⁹/L. Six of these patients were receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and seven for venous thrombosis. Four patients were taking antiplatelet agents as well.

The median follow up was 9 months (interquartile range, 4.5 to 24 months). During that time, there were 41 clinical encounters. Data on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes were available for 32 of these encounters.

Ten of the 13 patients had anticoagulation withheld at some point during their 22 clinical encounters. Major bleeding was present at five of the encounters. At 17 encounters, patients received additional ITP treatments.

Six of the 10 patients who stopped anticoagulation had new thrombotic events, and two of these events were fatal. Three of the patients had thrombotic events even though they resumed anticoagulation.

The remaining three patients (of the 13) did not stop anticoagulation. These patients received additional ITP treatments at six of their 10 clinical encounters.

Major bleeding was present at two of the 10 encounters, and one new thrombotic event occurred in a patient with metastatic squamous cell cancer (despite continued treatment with warfarin).

Testing the score

The TH2 score accurately predicted all seven thrombotic events.

There were four patients who initially had a negative TH2 score, which suggested an increased risk of bleeding.

However, these patients had a positive or 0 score—suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis—when they were assessed again, after their platelet counts increased above 50 x 10⁹/L.

The remaining three patients had initial scores of 0 and subsequent positive scores, both suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis.

The researchers said these findings suggest patients should be re-evaluated for thrombosis risk frequently, as ITP treatments are given and platelet counts increase.

“The results of our study suggest that the risk of thrombosis is high in patients with ITP who have a separate indication for anticoagulation, especially after ITP therapies are administered and the severe thrombocytopenia improves,” the researchers wrote. “Early resumption of anticoagulation should be considered in this population.”

The researchers also noted that this study was limited by its retrospective, single-center design and the small number of patients evaluated. Therefore, the TH2 score should be validated in additional, larger studies.

One researcher reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Principia Biopharma. The other researchers said they had no competing financial interests.

Image by Andre E.X. Brown

New research suggests a scoring system can predict the risk of thrombosis in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who are taking anticoagulants.

Researchers tested their Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia (TH2) risk assessment score in a small group of ITP patients on anticoagulants, and the score identified all seven patients who developed thrombosis.

The researchers also found that patients’ TH2 scores changed quickly—within a matter of days—which suggests they should be re-evaluated for thrombosis risk frequently.

Amaris K. Balitsky, MD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and her colleagues detailed this research in Blood.

About the score

To develop the TH2 score, the researchers conducted a review of the literature and existing tools used to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The resulting score consists of two thrombosis items and two bleeding items.

The thrombosis items are:

• High thrombotic risk, which includes patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score greater than five; unprovoked, recurrent, or cancer-associated thrombosis; or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome
• Receipt of ITP therapies known to increase the risk of thrombosis in the previous 14 days or splenectomy in the previous 30 days.

The score’s bleeding items are:

• Platelet count less than 20 x 10⁹/L
• Major bleeding (grade 2 bleeding that does not involve the skin) observed at a clinical encounter.

Each thrombosis item is assigned a score of +1, and each bleeding item is assigned a score of -1. A positive score or score of 0 suggests a net increased risk of thrombosis, and a negative score suggests a net increased risk of bleeding.

Patient population

The researchers tested the TH2 score in patients enrolled in the McMaster ITP Registry from 2010 to 2017.

There were 314 patients enrolled, but only 13 were receiving anticoagulation and had a platelet count less than 50 x 10⁹/L. Six of these patients were receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and seven for venous thrombosis. Four patients were taking antiplatelet agents as well.

The median follow up was 9 months (interquartile range, 4.5 to 24 months). During that time, there were 41 clinical encounters. Data on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes were available for 32 of these encounters.

Ten of the 13 patients had anticoagulation withheld at some point during their 22 clinical encounters. Major bleeding was present at five of the encounters. At 17 encounters, patients received additional ITP treatments.

Six of the 10 patients who stopped anticoagulation had new thrombotic events, and two of these events were fatal. Three of the patients had thrombotic events even though they resumed anticoagulation.

The remaining three patients (of the 13) did not stop anticoagulation. These patients received additional ITP treatments at six of their 10 clinical encounters.

Major bleeding was present at two of the 10 encounters, and one new thrombotic event occurred in a patient with metastatic squamous cell cancer (despite continued treatment with warfarin).

Testing the score

The TH2 score accurately predicted all seven thrombotic events.

There were four patients who initially had a negative TH2 score, which suggested an increased risk of bleeding.

However, these patients had a positive or 0 score—suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis—when they were assessed again, after their platelet counts increased above 50 x 10⁹/L.

The remaining three patients had initial scores of 0 and subsequent positive scores, both suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis.

The researchers said these findings suggest patients should be re-evaluated for thrombosis risk frequently, as ITP treatments are given and platelet counts increase.

“The results of our study suggest that the risk of thrombosis is high in patients with ITP who have a separate indication for anticoagulation, especially after ITP therapies are administered and the severe thrombocytopenia improves,” the researchers wrote. “Early resumption of anticoagulation should be considered in this population.”

The researchers also noted that this study was limited by its retrospective, single-center design and the small number of patients evaluated. Therefore, the TH2 score should be validated in additional, larger studies.

One researcher reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Principia Biopharma. The other researchers said they had no competing financial interests.

Image by Andre E.X. Brown

New research suggests a scoring system can predict the risk of thrombosis in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who are taking anticoagulants.

Researchers tested their Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia (TH2) risk assessment score in a small group of ITP patients on anticoagulants, and the score identified all seven patients who developed thrombosis.

The researchers also found that patients’ TH2 scores changed quickly—within a matter of days—which suggests they should be re-evaluated for thrombosis risk frequently.

Amaris K. Balitsky, MD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and her colleagues detailed this research in Blood.

About the score

To develop the TH2 score, the researchers conducted a review of the literature and existing tools used to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The resulting score consists of two thrombosis items and two bleeding items.

The thrombosis items are:

• High thrombotic risk, which includes patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score greater than five; unprovoked, recurrent, or cancer-associated thrombosis; or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome
• Receipt of ITP therapies known to increase the risk of thrombosis in the previous 14 days or splenectomy in the previous 30 days.

The score’s bleeding items are:

• Platelet count less than 20 x 10⁹/L
• Major bleeding (grade 2 bleeding that does not involve the skin) observed at a clinical encounter.

Each thrombosis item is assigned a score of +1, and each bleeding item is assigned a score of -1. A positive score or score of 0 suggests a net increased risk of thrombosis, and a negative score suggests a net increased risk of bleeding.

Patient population

The researchers tested the TH2 score in patients enrolled in the McMaster ITP Registry from 2010 to 2017.

There were 314 patients enrolled, but only 13 were receiving anticoagulation and had a platelet count less than 50 x 10⁹/L. Six of these patients were receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and seven for venous thrombosis. Four patients were taking antiplatelet agents as well.

The median follow up was 9 months (interquartile range, 4.5 to 24 months). During that time, there were 41 clinical encounters. Data on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes were available for 32 of these encounters.

Ten of the 13 patients had anticoagulation withheld at some point during their 22 clinical encounters. Major bleeding was present at five of the encounters. At 17 encounters, patients received additional ITP treatments.

Six of the 10 patients who stopped anticoagulation had new thrombotic events, and two of these events were fatal. Three of the patients had thrombotic events even though they resumed anticoagulation.

The remaining three patients (of the 13) did not stop anticoagulation. These patients received additional ITP treatments at six of their 10 clinical encounters.

Major bleeding was present at two of the 10 encounters, and one new thrombotic event occurred in a patient with metastatic squamous cell cancer (despite continued treatment with warfarin).

Testing the score

The TH2 score accurately predicted all seven thrombotic events.

There were four patients who initially had a negative TH2 score, which suggested an increased risk of bleeding.

However, these patients had a positive or 0 score—suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis—when they were assessed again, after their platelet counts increased above 50 x 10⁹/L.

The remaining three patients had initial scores of 0 and subsequent positive scores, both suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis.

The researchers said these findings suggest patients should be re-evaluated for thrombosis risk frequently, as ITP treatments are given and platelet counts increase.

“The results of our study suggest that the risk of thrombosis is high in patients with ITP who have a separate indication for anticoagulation, especially after ITP therapies are administered and the severe thrombocytopenia improves,” the researchers wrote. “Early resumption of anticoagulation should be considered in this population.”

The researchers also noted that this study was limited by its retrospective, single-center design and the small number of patients evaluated. Therefore, the TH2 score should be validated in additional, larger studies.

One researcher reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Principia Biopharma. The other researchers said they had no competing financial interests.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—Results of a pilot program suggest preoperative management of anemia can reduce transfusion rates and cut costs, but the effect on patient outcomes isn’t clear.

For this program, anemic patients received dietary guidance and supplementation prior to surgery.

This increased day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels, reduced intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and resulted in a cost savings of more than $100,000 over the life of the program.

Christine M. Cahill, BSN, MS, RN, of the University of Rochester and Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, presented these results at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM4-ST4-22*).

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with, traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” Cahill said.

She added that anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require transfusions.

The pilot program was implemented with this in mind. The program, which ran from February 2016 through September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing an anemia management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic (hemoglobin <12 g/dL). These patients were referred for anemia workups, which showed that 33 patients had iron-deficiency anemia, and 25 had anemia from other causes.

Preoperative anemia management for the iron-deficient patients included oral iron for seven patients, intravenous (IV) iron with or without folate for 20 patients, and oral folate with or without vitamin B12 for five patients. One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron, 17 received folate with or without B12, and seven patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for IV iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an IV infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Results

The researchers compared the 58 patients from the pilot program to control subjects—patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March through July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

The anemia management group received 10 red blood cell (RBC) units intraoperatively, compared to 68 intraoperative RBC units for controls. The total number of postoperative RBC units was 13 and 22, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions was 24% in the anemia management group and 60% in controls (P<0.0001). The average RBC units per patient was 0.4 and 2.07, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients in the anemia management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin than controls—11.01 and 10.16 g/dL, respectively (P<0.001).

The program provided an average per-patient savings in acquisition costs of $367.40, an average transfusion cost savings of $1,837, and a total cost savings of $106,546 over the life of the program.

The key to success of a similar program is “to make sure you do your homework,” Cahill said.

Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients, she added.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, Cahill emphasized.

This study was internally funded. Cahill reported no conflicts of interest.

*The data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—Results of a pilot program suggest preoperative management of anemia can reduce transfusion rates and cut costs, but the effect on patient outcomes isn’t clear.

For this program, anemic patients received dietary guidance and supplementation prior to surgery.

This increased day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels, reduced intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and resulted in a cost savings of more than $100,000 over the life of the program.

Christine M. Cahill, BSN, MS, RN, of the University of Rochester and Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, presented these results at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM4-ST4-22*).

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with, traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” Cahill said.

She added that anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require transfusions.

The pilot program was implemented with this in mind. The program, which ran from February 2016 through September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing an anemia management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic (hemoglobin <12 g/dL). These patients were referred for anemia workups, which showed that 33 patients had iron-deficiency anemia, and 25 had anemia from other causes.

Preoperative anemia management for the iron-deficient patients included oral iron for seven patients, intravenous (IV) iron with or without folate for 20 patients, and oral folate with or without vitamin B12 for five patients. One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron, 17 received folate with or without B12, and seven patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for IV iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an IV infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Results

The researchers compared the 58 patients from the pilot program to control subjects—patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March through July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

The anemia management group received 10 red blood cell (RBC) units intraoperatively, compared to 68 intraoperative RBC units for controls. The total number of postoperative RBC units was 13 and 22, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions was 24% in the anemia management group and 60% in controls (P<0.0001). The average RBC units per patient was 0.4 and 2.07, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients in the anemia management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin than controls—11.01 and 10.16 g/dL, respectively (P<0.001).

The program provided an average per-patient savings in acquisition costs of $367.40, an average transfusion cost savings of $1,837, and a total cost savings of $106,546 over the life of the program.

The key to success of a similar program is “to make sure you do your homework,” Cahill said.

Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients, she added.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, Cahill emphasized.

This study was internally funded. Cahill reported no conflicts of interest.

*The data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—Results of a pilot program suggest preoperative management of anemia can reduce transfusion rates and cut costs, but the effect on patient outcomes isn’t clear.

For this program, anemic patients received dietary guidance and supplementation prior to surgery.

This increased day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels, reduced intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and resulted in a cost savings of more than $100,000 over the life of the program.

Christine M. Cahill, BSN, MS, RN, of the University of Rochester and Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, presented these results at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM4-ST4-22*).

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with, traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” Cahill said.

She added that anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require transfusions.

The pilot program was implemented with this in mind. The program, which ran from February 2016 through September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing an anemia management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic (hemoglobin <12 g/dL). These patients were referred for anemia workups, which showed that 33 patients had iron-deficiency anemia, and 25 had anemia from other causes.

Preoperative anemia management for the iron-deficient patients included oral iron for seven patients, intravenous (IV) iron with or without folate for 20 patients, and oral folate with or without vitamin B12 for five patients. One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron, 17 received folate with or without B12, and seven patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for IV iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an IV infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Results

The researchers compared the 58 patients from the pilot program to control subjects—patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March through July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

The anemia management group received 10 red blood cell (RBC) units intraoperatively, compared to 68 intraoperative RBC units for controls. The total number of postoperative RBC units was 13 and 22, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions was 24% in the anemia management group and 60% in controls (P<0.0001). The average RBC units per patient was 0.4 and 2.07, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients in the anemia management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin than controls—11.01 and 10.16 g/dL, respectively (P<0.001).

The program provided an average per-patient savings in acquisition costs of $367.40, an average transfusion cost savings of $1,837, and a total cost savings of $106,546 over the life of the program.

The key to success of a similar program is “to make sure you do your homework,” Cahill said.

Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients, she added.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, Cahill emphasized.

This study was internally funded. Cahill reported no conflicts of interest.

*The data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

BOSTON – A pilot anemia optimization program resulted in significant increases in day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels and reductions in RBC transfusion rates and costs in one center, but whether patient outcomes also improved is still not known.

By diagnosing anemia at the preanesthesia visit and providing anemic patients with dietary guidance and supplementation prior to cardiac surgery, blood program managers noticed a more than $360 reduction in per-patient blood-product acquisition costs, a more than $1,800 average reduction per patient in transfusion costs, and overall cost savings of more than $100,000 over 18 months, compared with historical data.

The findings were reported by Christine M. Cahill, RN, from Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, N.Y., and the University of Rochester (N.Y.), at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought, and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” she said.

Anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require allogeneic transfusions and is an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality, she added.

The pilot program, which ran from February 2016 to September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing a management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic, defined as a hemoglobin level of less than 12 g/dL. These patients were referred for anemia work-ups, which found that 33 patients had iron-deficient anemia and 25 had anemia from other causes. Controls were patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March to July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

Treatments for iron-deficient patients included oral iron (7 patients), intravenous iron with or without folate (20 patients), or oral folate with or without vitamin B12 (5 patients). One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron and 17 received folate plus or minus vitamin B₁₂. The remaining seven iron-replete patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for intravenous iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an intravenous infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Intraoperative transfusion units used in the anemia management group totaled 10, compared with 68 for controls. Postoperative transfusion units used were also significantly lower following anemia management at 13 versus 122, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions among patients with anemia management was 24%, compared with 60% for controls (P less than .0001). Patients in the management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin, at 11.01 g/dL versus 10.16 g/dL (P less than .001), and less RBC utilization, at an average 0.40 units per patient versus 2.07 for controls (P less than .0001).

The average per patient savings in acquisition costs was $367.40, the average transfusion cost saving was $1,837, and the total cost savings over the life of the pilot program was $106,546.

The keys to success for similar programs is “to make sure you do your homework,” Ms. Cahill said. Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of ICU and hospital stay, she emphasized.

The study was internally funded. Ms. Cahill reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cahill CM et al. AABB 2018, Abstract PBM4-ST4-22.

BOSTON – A pilot anemia optimization program resulted in significant increases in day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels and reductions in RBC transfusion rates and costs in one center, but whether patient outcomes also improved is still not known.

By diagnosing anemia at the preanesthesia visit and providing anemic patients with dietary guidance and supplementation prior to cardiac surgery, blood program managers noticed a more than $360 reduction in per-patient blood-product acquisition costs, a more than $1,800 average reduction per patient in transfusion costs, and overall cost savings of more than $100,000 over 18 months, compared with historical data.

The findings were reported by Christine M. Cahill, RN, from Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, N.Y., and the University of Rochester (N.Y.), at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought, and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” she said.

Anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require allogeneic transfusions and is an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality, she added.

The pilot program, which ran from February 2016 to September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing a management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic, defined as a hemoglobin level of less than 12 g/dL. These patients were referred for anemia work-ups, which found that 33 patients had iron-deficient anemia and 25 had anemia from other causes. Controls were patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March to July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

Treatments for iron-deficient patients included oral iron (7 patients), intravenous iron with or without folate (20 patients), or oral folate with or without vitamin B12 (5 patients). One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron and 17 received folate plus or minus vitamin B₁₂. The remaining seven iron-replete patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for intravenous iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an intravenous infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Intraoperative transfusion units used in the anemia management group totaled 10, compared with 68 for controls. Postoperative transfusion units used were also significantly lower following anemia management at 13 versus 122, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions among patients with anemia management was 24%, compared with 60% for controls (P less than .0001). Patients in the management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin, at 11.01 g/dL versus 10.16 g/dL (P less than .001), and less RBC utilization, at an average 0.40 units per patient versus 2.07 for controls (P less than .0001).

The average per patient savings in acquisition costs was $367.40, the average transfusion cost saving was $1,837, and the total cost savings over the life of the pilot program was $106,546.

The keys to success for similar programs is “to make sure you do your homework,” Ms. Cahill said. Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of ICU and hospital stay, she emphasized.

The study was internally funded. Ms. Cahill reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cahill CM et al. AABB 2018, Abstract PBM4-ST4-22.

BOSTON – A pilot anemia optimization program resulted in significant increases in day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels and reductions in RBC transfusion rates and costs in one center, but whether patient outcomes also improved is still not known.

By diagnosing anemia at the preanesthesia visit and providing anemic patients with dietary guidance and supplementation prior to cardiac surgery, blood program managers noticed a more than $360 reduction in per-patient blood-product acquisition costs, a more than $1,800 average reduction per patient in transfusion costs, and overall cost savings of more than $100,000 over 18 months, compared with historical data.

The findings were reported by Christine M. Cahill, RN, from Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, N.Y., and the University of Rochester (N.Y.), at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought, and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” she said.

Anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require allogeneic transfusions and is an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality, she added.

The pilot program, which ran from February 2016 to September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing a management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic, defined as a hemoglobin level of less than 12 g/dL. These patients were referred for anemia work-ups, which found that 33 patients had iron-deficient anemia and 25 had anemia from other causes. Controls were patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March to July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

Treatments for iron-deficient patients included oral iron (7 patients), intravenous iron with or without folate (20 patients), or oral folate with or without vitamin B12 (5 patients). One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron and 17 received folate plus or minus vitamin B₁₂. The remaining seven iron-replete patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for intravenous iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an intravenous infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Intraoperative transfusion units used in the anemia management group totaled 10, compared with 68 for controls. Postoperative transfusion units used were also significantly lower following anemia management at 13 versus 122, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions among patients with anemia management was 24%, compared with 60% for controls (P less than .0001). Patients in the management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin, at 11.01 g/dL versus 10.16 g/dL (P less than .001), and less RBC utilization, at an average 0.40 units per patient versus 2.07 for controls (P less than .0001).

The average per patient savings in acquisition costs was $367.40, the average transfusion cost saving was $1,837, and the total cost savings over the life of the pilot program was $106,546.

The keys to success for similar programs is “to make sure you do your homework,” Ms. Cahill said. Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of ICU and hospital stay, she emphasized.

The study was internally funded. Ms. Cahill reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cahill CM et al. AABB 2018, Abstract PBM4-ST4-22.

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

An analysis of more than 2,000 U.S. patients with blood cancers revealed an average healthcare cost of almost $157,000 in the first year after diagnosis.

Costs were highest for acute leukemia patients—almost triple the average for all blood cancers.

Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were initially highest for acute leukemia patients. However, over time, OOP costs became highest for patients with multiple myeloma.

These results are included in a report commissioned by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman.

The report is based on data from the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims databases.

The cost figures are drawn from data for 2,332 patients, ages 18 to 64, who were diagnosed with blood cancer in 2014 and followed through 2016. This includes the following:

• 1,468 patients with lymphoma
• 286 with chronic leukemia
• 282 with multiple myeloma
• 148 with acute leukemia
• 148 with bone marrow disorders (myelodysplastic syndromes).

The average allowed spending—the amount paid by the payer and patient combined—in the first 12 months after diagnosis was:

• $156,845 overall
• $463,414 for acute leukemia
• $213,879 for multiple myeloma
• $133,744 for bone marrow disorders
• $130,545 for lymphoma
• $88,913 for chronic leukemia.

Differences in OOP costs were smaller, although OOP spending was 32% higher for acute leukemia patients than the overall average.

Average OOP costs—which include coinsurance, copay, and deductible—in the first 12 months after diagnosis were:

• $3,877 overall
• $5,147 for acute leukemia
• $4,849 for multiple myeloma
• $3,695 for lymphoma
• $3,480 for chronic leukemia
• $3,336 for bone marrow disorders.

Although OOP costs were initially highest for acute leukemia patients, over time, costs for multiple myeloma patients became the highest.

The average OOP costs in the month of diagnosis were $1,637 for acute leukemia patients and $1,210 for multiple myeloma patients.

The total accumulated OOP costs 3 years after diagnosis were $8,797 for acute leukemia and $9,127 for multiple myeloma. For the other blood cancers, the average 3-year accumulated OOP costs were under $7,800.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society received support from Pfizer, Genentech, and Amgen for this work.

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

An analysis of more than 2,000 U.S. patients with blood cancers revealed an average healthcare cost of almost $157,000 in the first year after diagnosis.

Costs were highest for acute leukemia patients—almost triple the average for all blood cancers.

Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were initially highest for acute leukemia patients. However, over time, OOP costs became highest for patients with multiple myeloma.

These results are included in a report commissioned by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman.

The report is based on data from the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims databases.

The cost figures are drawn from data for 2,332 patients, ages 18 to 64, who were diagnosed with blood cancer in 2014 and followed through 2016. This includes the following:

• 1,468 patients with lymphoma
• 286 with chronic leukemia
• 282 with multiple myeloma
• 148 with acute leukemia
• 148 with bone marrow disorders (myelodysplastic syndromes).

The average allowed spending—the amount paid by the payer and patient combined—in the first 12 months after diagnosis was:

• $156,845 overall
• $463,414 for acute leukemia
• $213,879 for multiple myeloma
• $133,744 for bone marrow disorders
• $130,545 for lymphoma
• $88,913 for chronic leukemia.

Differences in OOP costs were smaller, although OOP spending was 32% higher for acute leukemia patients than the overall average.

Average OOP costs—which include coinsurance, copay, and deductible—in the first 12 months after diagnosis were:

• $3,877 overall
• $5,147 for acute leukemia
• $4,849 for multiple myeloma
• $3,695 for lymphoma
• $3,480 for chronic leukemia
• $3,336 for bone marrow disorders.

Although OOP costs were initially highest for acute leukemia patients, over time, costs for multiple myeloma patients became the highest.

The average OOP costs in the month of diagnosis were $1,637 for acute leukemia patients and $1,210 for multiple myeloma patients.

The total accumulated OOP costs 3 years after diagnosis were $8,797 for acute leukemia and $9,127 for multiple myeloma. For the other blood cancers, the average 3-year accumulated OOP costs were under $7,800.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society received support from Pfizer, Genentech, and Amgen for this work.

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

An analysis of more than 2,000 U.S. patients with blood cancers revealed an average healthcare cost of almost $157,000 in the first year after diagnosis.

Costs were highest for acute leukemia patients—almost triple the average for all blood cancers.

Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were initially highest for acute leukemia patients. However, over time, OOP costs became highest for patients with multiple myeloma.

These results are included in a report commissioned by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman.

The report is based on data from the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims databases.

The cost figures are drawn from data for 2,332 patients, ages 18 to 64, who were diagnosed with blood cancer in 2014 and followed through 2016. This includes the following:

• 1,468 patients with lymphoma
• 286 with chronic leukemia
• 282 with multiple myeloma
• 148 with acute leukemia
• 148 with bone marrow disorders (myelodysplastic syndromes).

The average allowed spending—the amount paid by the payer and patient combined—in the first 12 months after diagnosis was:

• $156,845 overall
• $463,414 for acute leukemia
• $213,879 for multiple myeloma
• $133,744 for bone marrow disorders
• $130,545 for lymphoma
• $88,913 for chronic leukemia.

Differences in OOP costs were smaller, although OOP spending was 32% higher for acute leukemia patients than the overall average.

Average OOP costs—which include coinsurance, copay, and deductible—in the first 12 months after diagnosis were:

• $3,877 overall
• $5,147 for acute leukemia
• $4,849 for multiple myeloma
• $3,695 for lymphoma
• $3,480 for chronic leukemia
• $3,336 for bone marrow disorders.

Although OOP costs were initially highest for acute leukemia patients, over time, costs for multiple myeloma patients became the highest.

The average OOP costs in the month of diagnosis were $1,637 for acute leukemia patients and $1,210 for multiple myeloma patients.

The total accumulated OOP costs 3 years after diagnosis were $8,797 for acute leukemia and $9,127 for multiple myeloma. For the other blood cancers, the average 3-year accumulated OOP costs were under $7,800.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society received support from Pfizer, Genentech, and Amgen for this work.

BETHESDA, MD – While there are experimental treatments such as sevuparin and gene therapy in testing for sickle cell disease (SCD), researchers said this field is lagging because of a lack of funding.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

Yogen Saunthararajah, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, described what he called a “paltry” landscape of new drugs for SCD at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health.

There are only four main approaches taken by drugs now in clinical testing for addressing the root causes of SCD, despite decades’ worth of research of the genetic and mechanistic underpinnings of this disease, he said.

“It’s pretty sad,” Dr. Saunthararajah said, referring to the quantity of efforts, not their quality.

Within days of his presentation at the conference, one of the drugs he highlighted had officially fallen out of contention. An Oct. 26 post on NIH’s Clinicaltrials.gov site said Incyte had terminated its phase 1 study of INCB059872 in SCD “due to a business decision” not to pursue this indication. Incyte confirmed that it dropped development of INCB059872 for SCD but will continue testing it for other indications, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Dr. Saunthararajah said that work on another approach, using decitabine (Dacogen), for which he has done a phase 1 study, is “struggling,” because of the search for funding.

Two other approaches that Dr. Saunthararajah cited in his presentation appear to remain on track. These are gene therapy and the once-daily voxelotor treatment from Global Blood Therapeutics.

In the field of gene therapy, Sangamo Therapeutics and Sanofi’s Bioverativ in May said the Food and Drug Administration had cleared the way for them to start a phase 1/2 clinical trial for the BIVV003 product that they are developing together. This uses zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) gene-editing technology to modifying a short sequence of the BCL11A gene, with the aim of reactivating fetal hemoglobin.

Bluebird Bio’s LentiGlobin gene therapy has advanced as far as phase 3 for transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia and phase 1/2 for SCD. In October, the European Medicines Agency accepted the company’s application for approval of LentiGlobin gene therapy for the treatment of adolescents and adults with transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT) and a non-beta⁰/beta⁰ genotype. The company has not said when it expects to file with the FDA for approval of this treatment.

In the field of oral therapies, Global Blood Therapeutics has said it’s in discussions with the FDA about a potential accelerated approval of voxelotor. The tablet is meant to inhibit the underlying mechanism that causes sickling of red blood cells. In June, the company completed a planned review of early data from its phase 3 trial, known as the HOPE study.

“On the primary endpoint (the proportion of patients with greater than 1 g/dL increase in hemoglobin versus baseline), a statistically significant increase was demonstrated with voxelotor at both the 1,500-mg and 900-mg doses after 12 weeks of treatment versus placebo,” Global Blood Therapeutics said in an August regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company has said that voxelotor may meet the FDA’s standard for accelerated approval under Subpart H program.

In his presentation at the NIH conference, Tom Williams, MD, PhD, of KEMRI/Wellcome Trust Research Programme highlighted a recent review of experimental SCD treatments by Marilyn Jo Telen, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. (Blood. 2016;127[7]:810-9).

Also among the drugs being tested for SCD is Modus Therapeutics’ sevuparin, which Dr. Williams described as being “a heparin-like molecule without the anticoagulant complications.”

The compound originated as a “passion project” of Mats Wahlgren, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who developed it for the treatment of malaria, Dr. Williams said. The company that’s developing sevuparin, Modus Therapeutics, is moving it forward first as a treatment for SCD for commercial reasons, Dr. Williams said.

“They think it’s a better first target,” he said.

An ongoing study of sevuparin for painful crisis is expected to be completed in December, with data then expected to be released in the middle of 2019, Ellen K. Donnelly, PhD, chief executive officer of Modus Therapeutics, said in an interview. She cited a mix of scientific, medical and commercial reasons for her company’s decision to advance sevuparin in SCD.

“First, and most importantly, there is proof of clinical benefit of a similar molecule (the low-molecular-weight heparin called tinzaparin) in patients with sickle cell disease,” Dr. Donnelly said. “Unfortunately, there is a bleeding risk with tinzaparin that limits use of the agent for the treatment of sickle cell disease. Sevuparin does not have the bleeding risk and thus is a strong candidate for SCD.”

Dr. Donnelly also noted the emphasis that the FDA’s Division of Hematology Products has put on development of therapeutics for SCD as a reason for proceeding first with this indication. The agency and the American Society of Hematology in early October held a workshop of experts, physicians, patients, and industry collaborators focused on identifying new endpoints for clinical studies.

Still, she noted that commercial reasons did factor into this decision.

“[I]t is possible for a small company like Modus to take an asset all the way to market when developing a therapeutic for a rare disease given the need for fewer patients and smaller trials,” Dr. Donnelly wrote. “As you can see from www.clinicaltrials.gov, we were able to run our phase 2 study with a small number of sites. In addition, in SCD it is possible to get approval with only one or two confirmatory studies.”
 

Financial interests

Other drugs in testing for SCD include rivipansel from GlycoMimetics, for which Pfizer is leading development. The sponsors expect to complete the so-called RESET trial by 2019, according to the clinicaltrials.gov. In this study, which is intended to enroll 350 participants, patients who have vaso-occlusive crises are randomly selected for treatment with either rivipansel or placebo.

Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the NIH conference, Robert Swift, PhD, said there’s a need for inexpensive oral drugs to treat SCD. Many other options will remain beyond the finances of people living in poor countries, he said.

“We need to focus not only on the root cause, but on something that is oral and inexpensive to solve the greater sickle cell problem,” Dr. Swift said.

Large drugmakers already have hospital-based sales forces, making SCD drugs administered in this setting attractive to them, he said.

“This is partly about where money is. The drug companies are going where the money is. It’s not oral drugs to treat everybody, it’s something else,” Dr. Swift said. “So someone else is going to have to fund the basic research” into treatments that could be more broadly used.

Dr. Swift said in an interview that he has received NIH funding for developing SCD-101, an oral drug, for which a placebo-controlled crossover study is underway.

Presenters at the NIH conference, including Dr. Saunthararajah, expressed frustration about what they see as relatively little work being done on SCD despite decades of knowledge about the root causes. Like Dr. Swift, he criticized the approach taken in selecting which treatments advance in this field.

“It’s not being driven by what is the most cost effective, what the patients need the most,” Dr. Saunthararajah said. “It’s driven by what will make the most money, not just for [the] drug company, but also for the hospital and also for the physicians.”

Dr. Saunthararajah reported having patents and patent applications around decitabine/tetrahydrouridine, 5-azacytidine/tetrahydrouridine, and differentiation therapy for oncology. He has also been a consultant for EpiDestiny, Novo Nordisk, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Williams reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Swift is a managing member of Invenux and reported equity in Mast Therapeutics and SCD Development.

This article was updated on 11/9/2018.

BETHESDA, MD – While there are experimental treatments such as sevuparin and gene therapy in testing for sickle cell disease (SCD), researchers said this field is lagging because of a lack of funding.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

Yogen Saunthararajah, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, described what he called a “paltry” landscape of new drugs for SCD at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health.

There are only four main approaches taken by drugs now in clinical testing for addressing the root causes of SCD, despite decades’ worth of research of the genetic and mechanistic underpinnings of this disease, he said.

“It’s pretty sad,” Dr. Saunthararajah said, referring to the quantity of efforts, not their quality.

Within days of his presentation at the conference, one of the drugs he highlighted had officially fallen out of contention. An Oct. 26 post on NIH’s Clinicaltrials.gov site said Incyte had terminated its phase 1 study of INCB059872 in SCD “due to a business decision” not to pursue this indication. Incyte confirmed that it dropped development of INCB059872 for SCD but will continue testing it for other indications, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Dr. Saunthararajah said that work on another approach, using decitabine (Dacogen), for which he has done a phase 1 study, is “struggling,” because of the search for funding.

Two other approaches that Dr. Saunthararajah cited in his presentation appear to remain on track. These are gene therapy and the once-daily voxelotor treatment from Global Blood Therapeutics.

In the field of gene therapy, Sangamo Therapeutics and Sanofi’s Bioverativ in May said the Food and Drug Administration had cleared the way for them to start a phase 1/2 clinical trial for the BIVV003 product that they are developing together. This uses zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) gene-editing technology to modifying a short sequence of the BCL11A gene, with the aim of reactivating fetal hemoglobin.

Bluebird Bio’s LentiGlobin gene therapy has advanced as far as phase 3 for transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia and phase 1/2 for SCD. In October, the European Medicines Agency accepted the company’s application for approval of LentiGlobin gene therapy for the treatment of adolescents and adults with transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT) and a non-beta⁰/beta⁰ genotype. The company has not said when it expects to file with the FDA for approval of this treatment.

In the field of oral therapies, Global Blood Therapeutics has said it’s in discussions with the FDA about a potential accelerated approval of voxelotor. The tablet is meant to inhibit the underlying mechanism that causes sickling of red blood cells. In June, the company completed a planned review of early data from its phase 3 trial, known as the HOPE study.

“On the primary endpoint (the proportion of patients with greater than 1 g/dL increase in hemoglobin versus baseline), a statistically significant increase was demonstrated with voxelotor at both the 1,500-mg and 900-mg doses after 12 weeks of treatment versus placebo,” Global Blood Therapeutics said in an August regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company has said that voxelotor may meet the FDA’s standard for accelerated approval under Subpart H program.

In his presentation at the NIH conference, Tom Williams, MD, PhD, of KEMRI/Wellcome Trust Research Programme highlighted a recent review of experimental SCD treatments by Marilyn Jo Telen, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. (Blood. 2016;127[7]:810-9).

Also among the drugs being tested for SCD is Modus Therapeutics’ sevuparin, which Dr. Williams described as being “a heparin-like molecule without the anticoagulant complications.”

The compound originated as a “passion project” of Mats Wahlgren, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who developed it for the treatment of malaria, Dr. Williams said. The company that’s developing sevuparin, Modus Therapeutics, is moving it forward first as a treatment for SCD for commercial reasons, Dr. Williams said.

“They think it’s a better first target,” he said.

An ongoing study of sevuparin for painful crisis is expected to be completed in December, with data then expected to be released in the middle of 2019, Ellen K. Donnelly, PhD, chief executive officer of Modus Therapeutics, said in an interview. She cited a mix of scientific, medical and commercial reasons for her company’s decision to advance sevuparin in SCD.

“First, and most importantly, there is proof of clinical benefit of a similar molecule (the low-molecular-weight heparin called tinzaparin) in patients with sickle cell disease,” Dr. Donnelly said. “Unfortunately, there is a bleeding risk with tinzaparin that limits use of the agent for the treatment of sickle cell disease. Sevuparin does not have the bleeding risk and thus is a strong candidate for SCD.”

Dr. Donnelly also noted the emphasis that the FDA’s Division of Hematology Products has put on development of therapeutics for SCD as a reason for proceeding first with this indication. The agency and the American Society of Hematology in early October held a workshop of experts, physicians, patients, and industry collaborators focused on identifying new endpoints for clinical studies.

Still, she noted that commercial reasons did factor into this decision.

“[I]t is possible for a small company like Modus to take an asset all the way to market when developing a therapeutic for a rare disease given the need for fewer patients and smaller trials,” Dr. Donnelly wrote. “As you can see from www.clinicaltrials.gov, we were able to run our phase 2 study with a small number of sites. In addition, in SCD it is possible to get approval with only one or two confirmatory studies.”
 

Financial interests

Other drugs in testing for SCD include rivipansel from GlycoMimetics, for which Pfizer is leading development. The sponsors expect to complete the so-called RESET trial by 2019, according to the clinicaltrials.gov. In this study, which is intended to enroll 350 participants, patients who have vaso-occlusive crises are randomly selected for treatment with either rivipansel or placebo.

Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the NIH conference, Robert Swift, PhD, said there’s a need for inexpensive oral drugs to treat SCD. Many other options will remain beyond the finances of people living in poor countries, he said.

“We need to focus not only on the root cause, but on something that is oral and inexpensive to solve the greater sickle cell problem,” Dr. Swift said.

Large drugmakers already have hospital-based sales forces, making SCD drugs administered in this setting attractive to them, he said.

“This is partly about where money is. The drug companies are going where the money is. It’s not oral drugs to treat everybody, it’s something else,” Dr. Swift said. “So someone else is going to have to fund the basic research” into treatments that could be more broadly used.

Dr. Swift said in an interview that he has received NIH funding for developing SCD-101, an oral drug, for which a placebo-controlled crossover study is underway.

Presenters at the NIH conference, including Dr. Saunthararajah, expressed frustration about what they see as relatively little work being done on SCD despite decades of knowledge about the root causes. Like Dr. Swift, he criticized the approach taken in selecting which treatments advance in this field.

“It’s not being driven by what is the most cost effective, what the patients need the most,” Dr. Saunthararajah said. “It’s driven by what will make the most money, not just for [the] drug company, but also for the hospital and also for the physicians.”

Dr. Saunthararajah reported having patents and patent applications around decitabine/tetrahydrouridine, 5-azacytidine/tetrahydrouridine, and differentiation therapy for oncology. He has also been a consultant for EpiDestiny, Novo Nordisk, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Williams reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Swift is a managing member of Invenux and reported equity in Mast Therapeutics and SCD Development.

This article was updated on 11/9/2018.

BETHESDA, MD – While there are experimental treatments such as sevuparin and gene therapy in testing for sickle cell disease (SCD), researchers said this field is lagging because of a lack of funding.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

Yogen Saunthararajah, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, described what he called a “paltry” landscape of new drugs for SCD at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health.

There are only four main approaches taken by drugs now in clinical testing for addressing the root causes of SCD, despite decades’ worth of research of the genetic and mechanistic underpinnings of this disease, he said.

“It’s pretty sad,” Dr. Saunthararajah said, referring to the quantity of efforts, not their quality.

Within days of his presentation at the conference, one of the drugs he highlighted had officially fallen out of contention. An Oct. 26 post on NIH’s Clinicaltrials.gov site said Incyte had terminated its phase 1 study of INCB059872 in SCD “due to a business decision” not to pursue this indication. Incyte confirmed that it dropped development of INCB059872 for SCD but will continue testing it for other indications, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Dr. Saunthararajah said that work on another approach, using decitabine (Dacogen), for which he has done a phase 1 study, is “struggling,” because of the search for funding.

Two other approaches that Dr. Saunthararajah cited in his presentation appear to remain on track. These are gene therapy and the once-daily voxelotor treatment from Global Blood Therapeutics.

In the field of gene therapy, Sangamo Therapeutics and Sanofi’s Bioverativ in May said the Food and Drug Administration had cleared the way for them to start a phase 1/2 clinical trial for the BIVV003 product that they are developing together. This uses zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) gene-editing technology to modifying a short sequence of the BCL11A gene, with the aim of reactivating fetal hemoglobin.

Bluebird Bio’s LentiGlobin gene therapy has advanced as far as phase 3 for transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia and phase 1/2 for SCD. In October, the European Medicines Agency accepted the company’s application for approval of LentiGlobin gene therapy for the treatment of adolescents and adults with transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT) and a non-beta⁰/beta⁰ genotype. The company has not said when it expects to file with the FDA for approval of this treatment.

In the field of oral therapies, Global Blood Therapeutics has said it’s in discussions with the FDA about a potential accelerated approval of voxelotor. The tablet is meant to inhibit the underlying mechanism that causes sickling of red blood cells. In June, the company completed a planned review of early data from its phase 3 trial, known as the HOPE study.

“On the primary endpoint (the proportion of patients with greater than 1 g/dL increase in hemoglobin versus baseline), a statistically significant increase was demonstrated with voxelotor at both the 1,500-mg and 900-mg doses after 12 weeks of treatment versus placebo,” Global Blood Therapeutics said in an August regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company has said that voxelotor may meet the FDA’s standard for accelerated approval under Subpart H program.

In his presentation at the NIH conference, Tom Williams, MD, PhD, of KEMRI/Wellcome Trust Research Programme highlighted a recent review of experimental SCD treatments by Marilyn Jo Telen, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. (Blood. 2016;127[7]:810-9).

Also among the drugs being tested for SCD is Modus Therapeutics’ sevuparin, which Dr. Williams described as being “a heparin-like molecule without the anticoagulant complications.”

The compound originated as a “passion project” of Mats Wahlgren, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who developed it for the treatment of malaria, Dr. Williams said. The company that’s developing sevuparin, Modus Therapeutics, is moving it forward first as a treatment for SCD for commercial reasons, Dr. Williams said.

“They think it’s a better first target,” he said.

An ongoing study of sevuparin for painful crisis is expected to be completed in December, with data then expected to be released in the middle of 2019, Ellen K. Donnelly, PhD, chief executive officer of Modus Therapeutics, said in an interview. She cited a mix of scientific, medical and commercial reasons for her company’s decision to advance sevuparin in SCD.

“First, and most importantly, there is proof of clinical benefit of a similar molecule (the low-molecular-weight heparin called tinzaparin) in patients with sickle cell disease,” Dr. Donnelly said. “Unfortunately, there is a bleeding risk with tinzaparin that limits use of the agent for the treatment of sickle cell disease. Sevuparin does not have the bleeding risk and thus is a strong candidate for SCD.”

Dr. Donnelly also noted the emphasis that the FDA’s Division of Hematology Products has put on development of therapeutics for SCD as a reason for proceeding first with this indication. The agency and the American Society of Hematology in early October held a workshop of experts, physicians, patients, and industry collaborators focused on identifying new endpoints for clinical studies.

Still, she noted that commercial reasons did factor into this decision.

“[I]t is possible for a small company like Modus to take an asset all the way to market when developing a therapeutic for a rare disease given the need for fewer patients and smaller trials,” Dr. Donnelly wrote. “As you can see from www.clinicaltrials.gov, we were able to run our phase 2 study with a small number of sites. In addition, in SCD it is possible to get approval with only one or two confirmatory studies.”
 

Financial interests

Other drugs in testing for SCD include rivipansel from GlycoMimetics, for which Pfizer is leading development. The sponsors expect to complete the so-called RESET trial by 2019, according to the clinicaltrials.gov. In this study, which is intended to enroll 350 participants, patients who have vaso-occlusive crises are randomly selected for treatment with either rivipansel or placebo.

Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the NIH conference, Robert Swift, PhD, said there’s a need for inexpensive oral drugs to treat SCD. Many other options will remain beyond the finances of people living in poor countries, he said.

“We need to focus not only on the root cause, but on something that is oral and inexpensive to solve the greater sickle cell problem,” Dr. Swift said.

Large drugmakers already have hospital-based sales forces, making SCD drugs administered in this setting attractive to them, he said.

“This is partly about where money is. The drug companies are going where the money is. It’s not oral drugs to treat everybody, it’s something else,” Dr. Swift said. “So someone else is going to have to fund the basic research” into treatments that could be more broadly used.

Dr. Swift said in an interview that he has received NIH funding for developing SCD-101, an oral drug, for which a placebo-controlled crossover study is underway.

Presenters at the NIH conference, including Dr. Saunthararajah, expressed frustration about what they see as relatively little work being done on SCD despite decades of knowledge about the root causes. Like Dr. Swift, he criticized the approach taken in selecting which treatments advance in this field.

“It’s not being driven by what is the most cost effective, what the patients need the most,” Dr. Saunthararajah said. “It’s driven by what will make the most money, not just for [the] drug company, but also for the hospital and also for the physicians.”

Dr. Saunthararajah reported having patents and patent applications around decitabine/tetrahydrouridine, 5-azacytidine/tetrahydrouridine, and differentiation therapy for oncology. He has also been a consultant for EpiDestiny, Novo Nordisk, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Williams reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Swift is a managing member of Invenux and reported equity in Mast Therapeutics and SCD Development.

This article was updated on 11/9/2018.

BETHESDA, MD. – Obtaining an extended red cell antigen profile before a patient’s first transfusion can help improve outcomes and avoid complications in highly transfused patients, according to one researcher.

“We strongly feel that you should get an extended red cell type on the first encounter” for patients facing long-term transfusion support, Connie Westhoff, PhD, of the New York Blood Center, said at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health. “This can be a one-time test. It doesn’t have to be repeated.”

She also stressed the importance of ensuring that this information travels with patients, who may be seen at various hospitals. “One of the challenges here is making this part of the patient’s electronic medical record.”

Alloimmunization has been a major concern for chronically transfused patients, so there’s a real advantage to knowing a patient’s extended red cell antigen profile before the patient develops alloantibodies following transfusion, Dr. Westhoff said. Hemolytic transfusion reactions can sometimes destroy patients’ own RBCs in addition to the transfused RBCs. Having the patient’s profile to identify the potential cause of the incompatibility and guide transfusion support in an emergency can be lifesaving.

The implementation of genotyping by DNA-based methods has brought down the cost of this screening, making it no longer a barrier in care.


Dr. Westhoff cited a study she and her colleagues published on a study typing patients who have sickle cell disease (Transfusion. 2015 Jun;55[6 Pt 2]:1388-93). In that paper, they found that DNA-based RBC typing provided improved accuracy and expanded information on RBC antigens, compared with hemagglutination methods. This led to its implementation as the primary method for extended RBC typing for patients with sickle cell disease at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

About 65%-70% of antibodies drop to levels that are not detectable by routine assays, further demonstrating the need for DNA-based methods. The drugs used to dampen the immune response in many of these patients may also hinder or impact detection of antibodies that remain at levels that continue to cause in vivo hemolysis, Dr. Westhoff said in an interview.

For patients with sickle cell disease in many Western countries, antigen matching for CEK, at a minimum, is routine. The United States is now moving in this direction.

“Modern transfusion practice is moving to knowing what antigens the patient is at risk to become immunized against. ... What antigens does the patient lack and what antibodies could the patient make,” Dr. Westhoff said in an interview. “It’s a major advantage in your transfusion service to expedite work-ups and patient care by having that extended antigen profile.”

Dr. Westhoff reported no relevant financial disclosures.

BETHESDA, MD. – Obtaining an extended red cell antigen profile before a patient’s first transfusion can help improve outcomes and avoid complications in highly transfused patients, according to one researcher.

“We strongly feel that you should get an extended red cell type on the first encounter” for patients facing long-term transfusion support, Connie Westhoff, PhD, of the New York Blood Center, said at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health. “This can be a one-time test. It doesn’t have to be repeated.”

She also stressed the importance of ensuring that this information travels with patients, who may be seen at various hospitals. “One of the challenges here is making this part of the patient’s electronic medical record.”

Alloimmunization has been a major concern for chronically transfused patients, so there’s a real advantage to knowing a patient’s extended red cell antigen profile before the patient develops alloantibodies following transfusion, Dr. Westhoff said. Hemolytic transfusion reactions can sometimes destroy patients’ own RBCs in addition to the transfused RBCs. Having the patient’s profile to identify the potential cause of the incompatibility and guide transfusion support in an emergency can be lifesaving.

The implementation of genotyping by DNA-based methods has brought down the cost of this screening, making it no longer a barrier in care.


Dr. Westhoff cited a study she and her colleagues published on a study typing patients who have sickle cell disease (Transfusion. 2015 Jun;55[6 Pt 2]:1388-93). In that paper, they found that DNA-based RBC typing provided improved accuracy and expanded information on RBC antigens, compared with hemagglutination methods. This led to its implementation as the primary method for extended RBC typing for patients with sickle cell disease at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

About 65%-70% of antibodies drop to levels that are not detectable by routine assays, further demonstrating the need for DNA-based methods. The drugs used to dampen the immune response in many of these patients may also hinder or impact detection of antibodies that remain at levels that continue to cause in vivo hemolysis, Dr. Westhoff said in an interview.

For patients with sickle cell disease in many Western countries, antigen matching for CEK, at a minimum, is routine. The United States is now moving in this direction.

“Modern transfusion practice is moving to knowing what antigens the patient is at risk to become immunized against. ... What antigens does the patient lack and what antibodies could the patient make,” Dr. Westhoff said in an interview. “It’s a major advantage in your transfusion service to expedite work-ups and patient care by having that extended antigen profile.”

Dr. Westhoff reported no relevant financial disclosures.

BETHESDA, MD. – Obtaining an extended red cell antigen profile before a patient’s first transfusion can help improve outcomes and avoid complications in highly transfused patients, according to one researcher.

“We strongly feel that you should get an extended red cell type on the first encounter” for patients facing long-term transfusion support, Connie Westhoff, PhD, of the New York Blood Center, said at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health. “This can be a one-time test. It doesn’t have to be repeated.”

She also stressed the importance of ensuring that this information travels with patients, who may be seen at various hospitals. “One of the challenges here is making this part of the patient’s electronic medical record.”

Alloimmunization has been a major concern for chronically transfused patients, so there’s a real advantage to knowing a patient’s extended red cell antigen profile before the patient develops alloantibodies following transfusion, Dr. Westhoff said. Hemolytic transfusion reactions can sometimes destroy patients’ own RBCs in addition to the transfused RBCs. Having the patient’s profile to identify the potential cause of the incompatibility and guide transfusion support in an emergency can be lifesaving.

The implementation of genotyping by DNA-based methods has brought down the cost of this screening, making it no longer a barrier in care.


Dr. Westhoff cited a study she and her colleagues published on a study typing patients who have sickle cell disease (Transfusion. 2015 Jun;55[6 Pt 2]:1388-93). In that paper, they found that DNA-based RBC typing provided improved accuracy and expanded information on RBC antigens, compared with hemagglutination methods. This led to its implementation as the primary method for extended RBC typing for patients with sickle cell disease at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

About 65%-70% of antibodies drop to levels that are not detectable by routine assays, further demonstrating the need for DNA-based methods. The drugs used to dampen the immune response in many of these patients may also hinder or impact detection of antibodies that remain at levels that continue to cause in vivo hemolysis, Dr. Westhoff said in an interview.

For patients with sickle cell disease in many Western countries, antigen matching for CEK, at a minimum, is routine. The United States is now moving in this direction.

“Modern transfusion practice is moving to knowing what antigens the patient is at risk to become immunized against. ... What antigens does the patient lack and what antibodies could the patient make,” Dr. Westhoff said in an interview. “It’s a major advantage in your transfusion service to expedite work-ups and patient care by having that extended antigen profile.”

Dr. Westhoff reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Photo courtesy of GSK

Results from the phase 3 SUPPORT trial suggest there is no role for the combination of eltrombopag and azacitidine in patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to investigators.

Adding eltrombopag to azacitidine worsened platelet recovery, reduced the overall response rate, and did not improve overall or progression-free survival when compared to azacitidine plus placebo.

Investigators had hypothesized that eltrombopag would reduce the thrombocytopenia exacerbated by azacitidine treatment.

Not only was this not the case, but the investigators observed a trend toward increased progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in eltrombopag-treated patients.

An independent monitoring committee recommended the trial be terminated early.

Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues reported results from the trial in Blood.

The investigators conducted the SUPPORT study (NCT02158936) to investigate the efficacy and safety of eltrombopag as platelet supportive care in patients with intermediate- to high-risk MDS and thrombocytopenia who were receiving azacitidine.

Study design

Investigators randomized patients 1:1 to eltrombopag or placebo in combination with azacitidine. Patients had to have at least one platelet count less than 75 x 10⁹/L within 28 days prior to the first azacitidine dose.

Patients received azacitidine subcutaneously at a dose of 75 mg/m² once daily on 7 consecutive days for 28 days.

Patients received eltrombopag or placebo at a starting dose of 200 mg/day (100 mg/day for East Asians), adjusted by 100 mg increments (50 mg increments for East Asians) to a maximum of 300 mg/day (150 mg/day for East Asians).

Patient disposition

Investigators enrolled 356 patients from 30 countries between June 2014 and December 2015, randomizing 179 patients to eltrombopag and 177 to placebo.

Patients were a median age of 70, 66% were male, 83% were white, and 47% had platelet counts between 20 and 50 x 10⁹/L.

At the start of the trial, 19% of patients (n=66) were platelet transfusion-dependent—16% (29/179) in the eltrombopag group and 21% (37/177) in the placebo group.

Treatment exposure

Patients received eltrombopag for a median of 83 days (range, 60 to 148) and placebo for a median of 149 days (range, 8 to 503).

For non-East Asian patients, the mean dose of eltrombopag was 205 mg/day (range, 65 to 293), and the mean dose of placebo was 245 mg/day (range, 107 to 316).

Sixty-eight patients (38%) in the eltrombopag arm received the recommended number of six or more azacitidine cycles, compared to 91 (51%) in the placebo arm.

Two patients in the eltrombopag arm did not receive treatment. Therefore, the safety analyses were conducted on the 177 treated patients in each arm.

Safety

The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was termination of the study. Thirty-two percent of patients in the eltrombopag cohort and 44% in the placebo cohort discontinued for this reason.

Patients had to discontinue eltrombopag or placebo if azacitidine was discontinued, and this occurred in 30% of patients in the eltrombopag group and 26% in the placebo group.

Twenty-two percent of eltrombopag-treated patients discontinued due to adverse events (AEs), compared with 14% in the placebo group.

The most common reasons for azacitidine discontinuation in the eltrombopag and placebo arms, respectively, were study termination (35% and 46%), AEs (25% and 19%), disease progression (15% and 14%), and patient decision (11% and 9%).

AEs with the greatest difference between the eltrombopag and placebo arms, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (31% and 21%), neutropenia (31% and 26%), nausea (31% and 26%), and diarrhea (25% and 14%).

Sixty-three of the 177 AEs in the eltrombopag group were suspected to be treatment-related, compared to 42 of 173 AEs in the placebo group.

One hundred twenty-eight (72%) serious AEs occurred in the eltrombopag arm, compared to 100 (56%) in the placebo arm.

Fifteen percent of the serious AEs were suspected to be related to eltrombopag treatment, compared to 4% of the serious AEs in the placebo group.

At the final analysis, 108 patients had died—57 (32%) in the eltrombopag group and 51 (29%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.42; 95% CI 0.97, 2.08; nominal P=0.164).

The main causes of death were disease progression (28 in the eltrombopag group and 21 in the placebo group) and sepsis (18 in the eltrombopag group and 13 in the placebo group).

Efficacy

The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of platelet transfusions during cycles one to four of azacitidine therapy.

At the final analysis, there were fewer patients in the eltrombopag arm than in the placebo arm who had achieved platelet transfusion independence—16% (28/179) and 31% (55/177), respectively. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.37 (95% CI 0.21, 0.65; two-sided P value=0.001).

Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival, disease response, duration of response, progression to AML, progression-free survival, and hematologic improvement.

The investigators pointed out that no formal statistical tests were performed for the secondary endpoints. Therefore, “statistical interpretation should be made with caution,” they wrote.

Overall response by IWG criteria occurred in 20% of patients in the eltrombopag group and 35% of those in the placebo group, according to investigator assessment (OR=0.51; 95% CI 0.30, 0.86; nominal P=0.005).

There was no significant difference in hematologic improvement, overall survival, or progression-free survival between the treatment arms.

The investigators found a higher rate of progression to AML in the eltrombopag arm than in the placebo arm—15% and 9%, respectively (OR=1.59; 95% CI 0.81, 3.14; nominal P=0.079).

They pointed out that these results contrasted with those of recent clinical studies of eltrombopag monotherapy^1,2,3,4 in patients with MDS.

“[T]he findings of this trial were unexpected,” the investigators wrote.

They hypothesized that eltrombopag inhibits the effects of azacitidine when the drugs are given concomitantly. The issue is being studied further with ongoing research, they said.

The authors acknowledged financial support for medical editorial assistance provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Dr. Dickinson disclosed relationships with Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche. Senior study author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, disclosed relationships with Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.

1. Platzbecker U, et al Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(10):e417-e426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00149-0

2. Oliva EN, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(3):e127-e136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30012-1

3. Mittelman M, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2017;5(1):e34-e43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30228-4

4. Buckstein R. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(10):e396-e397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00200-8

Photo courtesy of GSK

Results from the phase 3 SUPPORT trial suggest there is no role for the combination of eltrombopag and azacitidine in patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to investigators.

Adding eltrombopag to azacitidine worsened platelet recovery, reduced the overall response rate, and did not improve overall or progression-free survival when compared to azacitidine plus placebo.

Investigators had hypothesized that eltrombopag would reduce the thrombocytopenia exacerbated by azacitidine treatment.

Not only was this not the case, but the investigators observed a trend toward increased progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in eltrombopag-treated patients.

An independent monitoring committee recommended the trial be terminated early.

Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues reported results from the trial in Blood.

The investigators conducted the SUPPORT study (NCT02158936) to investigate the efficacy and safety of eltrombopag as platelet supportive care in patients with intermediate- to high-risk MDS and thrombocytopenia who were receiving azacitidine.

Study design

Investigators randomized patients 1:1 to eltrombopag or placebo in combination with azacitidine. Patients had to have at least one platelet count less than 75 x 10⁹/L within 28 days prior to the first azacitidine dose.

Patients received azacitidine subcutaneously at a dose of 75 mg/m² once daily on 7 consecutive days for 28 days.

Patients received eltrombopag or placebo at a starting dose of 200 mg/day (100 mg/day for East Asians), adjusted by 100 mg increments (50 mg increments for East Asians) to a maximum of 300 mg/day (150 mg/day for East Asians).

Patient disposition

Investigators enrolled 356 patients from 30 countries between June 2014 and December 2015, randomizing 179 patients to eltrombopag and 177 to placebo.

Patients were a median age of 70, 66% were male, 83% were white, and 47% had platelet counts between 20 and 50 x 10⁹/L.

At the start of the trial, 19% of patients (n=66) were platelet transfusion-dependent—16% (29/179) in the eltrombopag group and 21% (37/177) in the placebo group.

Treatment exposure

Patients received eltrombopag for a median of 83 days (range, 60 to 148) and placebo for a median of 149 days (range, 8 to 503).

For non-East Asian patients, the mean dose of eltrombopag was 205 mg/day (range, 65 to 293), and the mean dose of placebo was 245 mg/day (range, 107 to 316).

Sixty-eight patients (38%) in the eltrombopag arm received the recommended number of six or more azacitidine cycles, compared to 91 (51%) in the placebo arm.

Two patients in the eltrombopag arm did not receive treatment. Therefore, the safety analyses were conducted on the 177 treated patients in each arm.

Safety

The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was termination of the study. Thirty-two percent of patients in the eltrombopag cohort and 44% in the placebo cohort discontinued for this reason.

Patients had to discontinue eltrombopag or placebo if azacitidine was discontinued, and this occurred in 30% of patients in the eltrombopag group and 26% in the placebo group.

Twenty-two percent of eltrombopag-treated patients discontinued due to adverse events (AEs), compared with 14% in the placebo group.

The most common reasons for azacitidine discontinuation in the eltrombopag and placebo arms, respectively, were study termination (35% and 46%), AEs (25% and 19%), disease progression (15% and 14%), and patient decision (11% and 9%).

AEs with the greatest difference between the eltrombopag and placebo arms, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (31% and 21%), neutropenia (31% and 26%), nausea (31% and 26%), and diarrhea (25% and 14%).

Sixty-three of the 177 AEs in the eltrombopag group were suspected to be treatment-related, compared to 42 of 173 AEs in the placebo group.

One hundred twenty-eight (72%) serious AEs occurred in the eltrombopag arm, compared to 100 (56%) in the placebo arm.

Fifteen percent of the serious AEs were suspected to be related to eltrombopag treatment, compared to 4% of the serious AEs in the placebo group.

At the final analysis, 108 patients had died—57 (32%) in the eltrombopag group and 51 (29%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.42; 95% CI 0.97, 2.08; nominal P=0.164).

The main causes of death were disease progression (28 in the eltrombopag group and 21 in the placebo group) and sepsis (18 in the eltrombopag group and 13 in the placebo group).

Efficacy

The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of platelet transfusions during cycles one to four of azacitidine therapy.

At the final analysis, there were fewer patients in the eltrombopag arm than in the placebo arm who had achieved platelet transfusion independence—16% (28/179) and 31% (55/177), respectively. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.37 (95% CI 0.21, 0.65; two-sided P value=0.001).

Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival, disease response, duration of response, progression to AML, progression-free survival, and hematologic improvement.

The investigators pointed out that no formal statistical tests were performed for the secondary endpoints. Therefore, “statistical interpretation should be made with caution,” they wrote.

Overall response by IWG criteria occurred in 20% of patients in the eltrombopag group and 35% of those in the placebo group, according to investigator assessment (OR=0.51; 95% CI 0.30, 0.86; nominal P=0.005).

There was no significant difference in hematologic improvement, overall survival, or progression-free survival between the treatment arms.

The investigators found a higher rate of progression to AML in the eltrombopag arm than in the placebo arm—15% and 9%, respectively (OR=1.59; 95% CI 0.81, 3.14; nominal P=0.079).

They pointed out that these results contrasted with those of recent clinical studies of eltrombopag monotherapy^1,2,3,4 in patients with MDS.

“[T]he findings of this trial were unexpected,” the investigators wrote.

They hypothesized that eltrombopag inhibits the effects of azacitidine when the drugs are given concomitantly. The issue is being studied further with ongoing research, they said.

The authors acknowledged financial support for medical editorial assistance provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Dr. Dickinson disclosed relationships with Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche. Senior study author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, disclosed relationships with Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.

1. Platzbecker U, et al Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(10):e417-e426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00149-0

2. Oliva EN, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(3):e127-e136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30012-1

3. Mittelman M, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2017;5(1):e34-e43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30228-4

4. Buckstein R. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(10):e396-e397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00200-8

Photo courtesy of GSK

Results from the phase 3 SUPPORT trial suggest there is no role for the combination of eltrombopag and azacitidine in patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to investigators.

Adding eltrombopag to azacitidine worsened platelet recovery, reduced the overall response rate, and did not improve overall or progression-free survival when compared to azacitidine plus placebo.

Investigators had hypothesized that eltrombopag would reduce the thrombocytopenia exacerbated by azacitidine treatment.

Not only was this not the case, but the investigators observed a trend toward increased progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in eltrombopag-treated patients.

An independent monitoring committee recommended the trial be terminated early.

Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues reported results from the trial in Blood.

The investigators conducted the SUPPORT study (NCT02158936) to investigate the efficacy and safety of eltrombopag as platelet supportive care in patients with intermediate- to high-risk MDS and thrombocytopenia who were receiving azacitidine.

Study design

Investigators randomized patients 1:1 to eltrombopag or placebo in combination with azacitidine. Patients had to have at least one platelet count less than 75 x 10⁹/L within 28 days prior to the first azacitidine dose.

Patients received azacitidine subcutaneously at a dose of 75 mg/m² once daily on 7 consecutive days for 28 days.

Patients received eltrombopag or placebo at a starting dose of 200 mg/day (100 mg/day for East Asians), adjusted by 100 mg increments (50 mg increments for East Asians) to a maximum of 300 mg/day (150 mg/day for East Asians).

Patient disposition

Investigators enrolled 356 patients from 30 countries between June 2014 and December 2015, randomizing 179 patients to eltrombopag and 177 to placebo.

Patients were a median age of 70, 66% were male, 83% were white, and 47% had platelet counts between 20 and 50 x 10⁹/L.

At the start of the trial, 19% of patients (n=66) were platelet transfusion-dependent—16% (29/179) in the eltrombopag group and 21% (37/177) in the placebo group.

Treatment exposure

Patients received eltrombopag for a median of 83 days (range, 60 to 148) and placebo for a median of 149 days (range, 8 to 503).

For non-East Asian patients, the mean dose of eltrombopag was 205 mg/day (range, 65 to 293), and the mean dose of placebo was 245 mg/day (range, 107 to 316).

Sixty-eight patients (38%) in the eltrombopag arm received the recommended number of six or more azacitidine cycles, compared to 91 (51%) in the placebo arm.

Two patients in the eltrombopag arm did not receive treatment. Therefore, the safety analyses were conducted on the 177 treated patients in each arm.

Safety

The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was termination of the study. Thirty-two percent of patients in the eltrombopag cohort and 44% in the placebo cohort discontinued for this reason.

Patients had to discontinue eltrombopag or placebo if azacitidine was discontinued, and this occurred in 30% of patients in the eltrombopag group and 26% in the placebo group.

Twenty-two percent of eltrombopag-treated patients discontinued due to adverse events (AEs), compared with 14% in the placebo group.

The most common reasons for azacitidine discontinuation in the eltrombopag and placebo arms, respectively, were study termination (35% and 46%), AEs (25% and 19%), disease progression (15% and 14%), and patient decision (11% and 9%).

AEs with the greatest difference between the eltrombopag and placebo arms, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (31% and 21%), neutropenia (31% and 26%), nausea (31% and 26%), and diarrhea (25% and 14%).

Sixty-three of the 177 AEs in the eltrombopag group were suspected to be treatment-related, compared to 42 of 173 AEs in the placebo group.

One hundred twenty-eight (72%) serious AEs occurred in the eltrombopag arm, compared to 100 (56%) in the placebo arm.

Fifteen percent of the serious AEs were suspected to be related to eltrombopag treatment, compared to 4% of the serious AEs in the placebo group.

At the final analysis, 108 patients had died—57 (32%) in the eltrombopag group and 51 (29%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.42; 95% CI 0.97, 2.08; nominal P=0.164).

The main causes of death were disease progression (28 in the eltrombopag group and 21 in the placebo group) and sepsis (18 in the eltrombopag group and 13 in the placebo group).

Efficacy

The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of platelet transfusions during cycles one to four of azacitidine therapy.

At the final analysis, there were fewer patients in the eltrombopag arm than in the placebo arm who had achieved platelet transfusion independence—16% (28/179) and 31% (55/177), respectively. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.37 (95% CI 0.21, 0.65; two-sided P value=0.001).

Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival, disease response, duration of response, progression to AML, progression-free survival, and hematologic improvement.

The investigators pointed out that no formal statistical tests were performed for the secondary endpoints. Therefore, “statistical interpretation should be made with caution,” they wrote.

Overall response by IWG criteria occurred in 20% of patients in the eltrombopag group and 35% of those in the placebo group, according to investigator assessment (OR=0.51; 95% CI 0.30, 0.86; nominal P=0.005).

There was no significant difference in hematologic improvement, overall survival, or progression-free survival between the treatment arms.

The investigators found a higher rate of progression to AML in the eltrombopag arm than in the placebo arm—15% and 9%, respectively (OR=1.59; 95% CI 0.81, 3.14; nominal P=0.079).

They pointed out that these results contrasted with those of recent clinical studies of eltrombopag monotherapy^1,2,3,4 in patients with MDS.

“[T]he findings of this trial were unexpected,” the investigators wrote.

They hypothesized that eltrombopag inhibits the effects of azacitidine when the drugs are given concomitantly. The issue is being studied further with ongoing research, they said.

The authors acknowledged financial support for medical editorial assistance provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Dr. Dickinson disclosed relationships with Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche. Senior study author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, disclosed relationships with Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.

1. Platzbecker U, et al Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(10):e417-e426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00149-0

2. Oliva EN, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(3):e127-e136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30012-1

3. Mittelman M, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2017;5(1):e34-e43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30228-4

4. Buckstein R. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(10):e396-e397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00200-8