User login
Blood Buddies: Can Mentorship Revive Classical Hematology?
But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.
“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”
Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.
Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.
How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?
Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.
The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”
If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients.
Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.
“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said.
There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.
Why Does a Shortage Exist?
“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”
As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said.
The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”
Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”
However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.”
As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”
Why Are Mentors Important?
Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”
As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”
As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”
Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.”
Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?
The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”
Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute.
The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month.
Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.
“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”
Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.”
There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field.
What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?
The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”
Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”
Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.
Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.
“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”
Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.
Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.
How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?
Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.
The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”
If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients.
Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.
“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said.
There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.
Why Does a Shortage Exist?
“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”
As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said.
The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”
Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”
However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.”
As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”
Why Are Mentors Important?
Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”
As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”
As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”
Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.”
Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?
The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”
Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute.
The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month.
Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.
“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”
Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.”
There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field.
What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?
The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”
Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”
Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.
Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.
“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”
Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.
Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.
How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?
Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.
The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”
If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients.
Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.
“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said.
There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.
Why Does a Shortage Exist?
“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”
As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said.
The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”
Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”
However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.”
As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”
Why Are Mentors Important?
Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”
As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”
As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”
Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.”
Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?
The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”
Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute.
The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month.
Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.
“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”
Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.”
There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field.
What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?
The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”
Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”
Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.
Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SCD: Can Atrial Arrhythmias Predict Strokes?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 130 adult patients with SCD were included in the DREPACOEUR prospective registry from November 2018 to November 2022.
- The patients underwent a comprehensive cardiac evaluation, including 24-hour electrocardiogram monitoring, echocardiography, and laboratory tests.
- The primary endpoint was the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias, defined by excessive supraventricular ectopic activity or any recent history of atrial fibrillation.
- Patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack were also included in the PCDREP prospective registry for further assessment.
- Written informed consent was collected from all participating patients, and the study was approved by the ethics committee.
TAKEAWAY:
- Atrial arrhythmias were found in 26% of patients with SCD, with a significant association with stroke history (P = .001).
- Age and left atrial volume were independently associated with atrial arrhythmias, with optimal cutoffs of 47 years and 55 mL/m2, respectively.
- Patients with atrial arrhythmias had higher diastolic blood pressure, worse kidney function, and higher NT pro-BNP levels than those without arrhythmias.
- Atrial arrhythmias were associated with an increased risk for stroke unrelated to cerebral vasculopathy or other defined causes (odds ratio, 6.6; P = .009).
“Atrial arrhythmias were found in 26% of patients with sickle cell anemia, with a significant association with stroke history,” wrote the authors of the study. In a commentary published concurrently, Jonathan Uniat, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in California, wrote, “Early detection and treatment of atrial arrhythmias may help prevent strokes in this population.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Thomas d’Humières, Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France. It was published online on November 12 in Blood Advances.
LIMITATIONS:
This study was a pilot prospective study and was underpowered with atrial arrhythmias occurring in only 34 patients. The population was relatively old for sickle cell anemia (45 years), and the study was biased because patients were selected based on clinical criteria indicative of underlying cardiovascular abnormalities. The population was heterogeneous in terms of antiarrhythmic therapy, and overall, at an advanced stage of the disease with frequent organ complications.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from FHU-SENEC. Pablo Bartolucci received grants from Addmedica, the Fabre Foundation, Novartis, and Bluebird in the past 36 months; received consulting fees from Addmedica, Novartis, Roche, GBT, Bluebird, Emmaus, Hemanext, and Agios; received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Addmedica, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and reported being a member of the Novartis steering committee and cofounder of Innovhem. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 130 adult patients with SCD were included in the DREPACOEUR prospective registry from November 2018 to November 2022.
- The patients underwent a comprehensive cardiac evaluation, including 24-hour electrocardiogram monitoring, echocardiography, and laboratory tests.
- The primary endpoint was the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias, defined by excessive supraventricular ectopic activity or any recent history of atrial fibrillation.
- Patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack were also included in the PCDREP prospective registry for further assessment.
- Written informed consent was collected from all participating patients, and the study was approved by the ethics committee.
TAKEAWAY:
- Atrial arrhythmias were found in 26% of patients with SCD, with a significant association with stroke history (P = .001).
- Age and left atrial volume were independently associated with atrial arrhythmias, with optimal cutoffs of 47 years and 55 mL/m2, respectively.
- Patients with atrial arrhythmias had higher diastolic blood pressure, worse kidney function, and higher NT pro-BNP levels than those without arrhythmias.
- Atrial arrhythmias were associated with an increased risk for stroke unrelated to cerebral vasculopathy or other defined causes (odds ratio, 6.6; P = .009).
“Atrial arrhythmias were found in 26% of patients with sickle cell anemia, with a significant association with stroke history,” wrote the authors of the study. In a commentary published concurrently, Jonathan Uniat, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in California, wrote, “Early detection and treatment of atrial arrhythmias may help prevent strokes in this population.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Thomas d’Humières, Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France. It was published online on November 12 in Blood Advances.
LIMITATIONS:
This study was a pilot prospective study and was underpowered with atrial arrhythmias occurring in only 34 patients. The population was relatively old for sickle cell anemia (45 years), and the study was biased because patients were selected based on clinical criteria indicative of underlying cardiovascular abnormalities. The population was heterogeneous in terms of antiarrhythmic therapy, and overall, at an advanced stage of the disease with frequent organ complications.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from FHU-SENEC. Pablo Bartolucci received grants from Addmedica, the Fabre Foundation, Novartis, and Bluebird in the past 36 months; received consulting fees from Addmedica, Novartis, Roche, GBT, Bluebird, Emmaus, Hemanext, and Agios; received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Addmedica, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and reported being a member of the Novartis steering committee and cofounder of Innovhem. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 130 adult patients with SCD were included in the DREPACOEUR prospective registry from November 2018 to November 2022.
- The patients underwent a comprehensive cardiac evaluation, including 24-hour electrocardiogram monitoring, echocardiography, and laboratory tests.
- The primary endpoint was the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias, defined by excessive supraventricular ectopic activity or any recent history of atrial fibrillation.
- Patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack were also included in the PCDREP prospective registry for further assessment.
- Written informed consent was collected from all participating patients, and the study was approved by the ethics committee.
TAKEAWAY:
- Atrial arrhythmias were found in 26% of patients with SCD, with a significant association with stroke history (P = .001).
- Age and left atrial volume were independently associated with atrial arrhythmias, with optimal cutoffs of 47 years and 55 mL/m2, respectively.
- Patients with atrial arrhythmias had higher diastolic blood pressure, worse kidney function, and higher NT pro-BNP levels than those without arrhythmias.
- Atrial arrhythmias were associated with an increased risk for stroke unrelated to cerebral vasculopathy or other defined causes (odds ratio, 6.6; P = .009).
“Atrial arrhythmias were found in 26% of patients with sickle cell anemia, with a significant association with stroke history,” wrote the authors of the study. In a commentary published concurrently, Jonathan Uniat, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in California, wrote, “Early detection and treatment of atrial arrhythmias may help prevent strokes in this population.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Thomas d’Humières, Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France. It was published online on November 12 in Blood Advances.
LIMITATIONS:
This study was a pilot prospective study and was underpowered with atrial arrhythmias occurring in only 34 patients. The population was relatively old for sickle cell anemia (45 years), and the study was biased because patients were selected based on clinical criteria indicative of underlying cardiovascular abnormalities. The population was heterogeneous in terms of antiarrhythmic therapy, and overall, at an advanced stage of the disease with frequent organ complications.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from FHU-SENEC. Pablo Bartolucci received grants from Addmedica, the Fabre Foundation, Novartis, and Bluebird in the past 36 months; received consulting fees from Addmedica, Novartis, Roche, GBT, Bluebird, Emmaus, Hemanext, and Agios; received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Addmedica, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and reported being a member of the Novartis steering committee and cofounder of Innovhem. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Pfizer’s Hympavzi for Hemophilia A, B
The once-weekly subcutaneous injection targets an anticoagulation protein called tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI). Reducing TFPI’s amount and activity in the blood subsequently increases the amount of thrombin, a pro-clotting enzyme, in circulation.
“Today’s approval of Hympavzi provides patients with hemophilia a new treatment option that is the first of its kind to work by targeting a protein in the blood clotting process,” Ann Farrell, MD, director of FDA’s Division of Non-Malignant Hematology, said in an agency press release.
Hympavzi is the first non-factor, once-weekly treatment for hemophilia B in the United States. The subcutaneous injection emicizumab (Hemlibra, Genentech), which works by a different mechanism, is already on the market for hemophilia A.
The current approval was based on the open-label BASIS trial in 116 men and boys with either severe hemophilia A or B without factor inhibitors.
During the trial’s first 6 months, patients received standard treatment with clotting factor replacement either on-demand (33 patients) or prophylactically (83 patients). Patients were then switched to Hympavzi prophylaxis for a year.
Among patients receiving on-demand standard treatment during the first 6 months, the annualized bleeding rate was 38 episodes. That rate fell to 3.2 episodes during treatment with Hympavzi.
Among patients receiving prophylactic standard treatment during the first 6 months, the estimated annualized bleeding rate was 7.85 episodes, which then fell to 5.08 during the year of Hympavzi prophylaxis, FDA said.
Injection-site reactions, headaches, and itching were the most common side effects with marstacimab, occurring in 3% or more of patients. Labeling warns of the potential for circulating blood clots, hypersensitivity, and embryofetal toxicity. Marstacimab is supplied in prefilled syringes.
Marstacimab is Pfizer’s second hemophilia approval in 2024. FDA approved the company’s hemophilia B gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) in April.
Pfizer noted in a press release that results for another arm of the BASIS trial in patients with clotting factor inhibitors are expected in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The once-weekly subcutaneous injection targets an anticoagulation protein called tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI). Reducing TFPI’s amount and activity in the blood subsequently increases the amount of thrombin, a pro-clotting enzyme, in circulation.
“Today’s approval of Hympavzi provides patients with hemophilia a new treatment option that is the first of its kind to work by targeting a protein in the blood clotting process,” Ann Farrell, MD, director of FDA’s Division of Non-Malignant Hematology, said in an agency press release.
Hympavzi is the first non-factor, once-weekly treatment for hemophilia B in the United States. The subcutaneous injection emicizumab (Hemlibra, Genentech), which works by a different mechanism, is already on the market for hemophilia A.
The current approval was based on the open-label BASIS trial in 116 men and boys with either severe hemophilia A or B without factor inhibitors.
During the trial’s first 6 months, patients received standard treatment with clotting factor replacement either on-demand (33 patients) or prophylactically (83 patients). Patients were then switched to Hympavzi prophylaxis for a year.
Among patients receiving on-demand standard treatment during the first 6 months, the annualized bleeding rate was 38 episodes. That rate fell to 3.2 episodes during treatment with Hympavzi.
Among patients receiving prophylactic standard treatment during the first 6 months, the estimated annualized bleeding rate was 7.85 episodes, which then fell to 5.08 during the year of Hympavzi prophylaxis, FDA said.
Injection-site reactions, headaches, and itching were the most common side effects with marstacimab, occurring in 3% or more of patients. Labeling warns of the potential for circulating blood clots, hypersensitivity, and embryofetal toxicity. Marstacimab is supplied in prefilled syringes.
Marstacimab is Pfizer’s second hemophilia approval in 2024. FDA approved the company’s hemophilia B gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) in April.
Pfizer noted in a press release that results for another arm of the BASIS trial in patients with clotting factor inhibitors are expected in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The once-weekly subcutaneous injection targets an anticoagulation protein called tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI). Reducing TFPI’s amount and activity in the blood subsequently increases the amount of thrombin, a pro-clotting enzyme, in circulation.
“Today’s approval of Hympavzi provides patients with hemophilia a new treatment option that is the first of its kind to work by targeting a protein in the blood clotting process,” Ann Farrell, MD, director of FDA’s Division of Non-Malignant Hematology, said in an agency press release.
Hympavzi is the first non-factor, once-weekly treatment for hemophilia B in the United States. The subcutaneous injection emicizumab (Hemlibra, Genentech), which works by a different mechanism, is already on the market for hemophilia A.
The current approval was based on the open-label BASIS trial in 116 men and boys with either severe hemophilia A or B without factor inhibitors.
During the trial’s first 6 months, patients received standard treatment with clotting factor replacement either on-demand (33 patients) or prophylactically (83 patients). Patients were then switched to Hympavzi prophylaxis for a year.
Among patients receiving on-demand standard treatment during the first 6 months, the annualized bleeding rate was 38 episodes. That rate fell to 3.2 episodes during treatment with Hympavzi.
Among patients receiving prophylactic standard treatment during the first 6 months, the estimated annualized bleeding rate was 7.85 episodes, which then fell to 5.08 during the year of Hympavzi prophylaxis, FDA said.
Injection-site reactions, headaches, and itching were the most common side effects with marstacimab, occurring in 3% or more of patients. Labeling warns of the potential for circulating blood clots, hypersensitivity, and embryofetal toxicity. Marstacimab is supplied in prefilled syringes.
Marstacimab is Pfizer’s second hemophilia approval in 2024. FDA approved the company’s hemophilia B gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) in April.
Pfizer noted in a press release that results for another arm of the BASIS trial in patients with clotting factor inhibitors are expected in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer’s Withdrawal of SCD Drug Raises Questions
The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.
“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.
On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”
Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.
The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.
On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.
The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.
“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)
As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.
The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.
These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.
“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.
“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.
The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.
The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.
“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”
Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.
“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.
Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.
Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.
“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.
“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.
On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”
Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.
The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.
On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.
The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.
“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)
As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.
The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.
These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.
“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.
“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.
The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.
The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.
“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”
Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.
“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.
Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.
Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.
“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.
“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.
On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”
Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.
The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.
On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.
The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.
“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)
As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.
The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.
These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.
“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.
“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.
The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.
The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.
“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”
Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.
“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.
Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.
Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.
“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No Matched Sibling Donor? Sickle Cell Experts Debate Next-Best Option
“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.
“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”
But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.
“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”
As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.
“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”
Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.
“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”
Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.
As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.
In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.
The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.
For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.
“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”
Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.
The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.
“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”
But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.
“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”
As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.
“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”
Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.
“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”
Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.
As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.
In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.
The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.
For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.
“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”
Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.
The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.
“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”
But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.
“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”
As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.
“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”
Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.
“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”
Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.
As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.
In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.
The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.
For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.
“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”
Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.
The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2024
Two Soliris Biosimilars Approved for PNH in the US
The first, Bkemv (eculizumab-aeeb, Amgen), was approved in May, and the second, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh, Samsung Bioepis), was approved on July 22.
Soliris (eculizumab, Alexion) is an intravenous agent indicated for the treatment of PNH and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, as well as generalized myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optical spectrum disorder.
Both Bkemv and Epysqli are monoclonal antibodies that bind to complement protein C5 and have been approved previously in Europe. Availability for Bkemv in the United States will be delayed until March 1, 2025, under a patent settlement agreement between Alexion and Amgen.
The FDA approval for Bkemv was based on findings from the double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 DAHLIA study showing similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to Soliris in adults with PNH. The agents reduce the loss of red blood cells and, thus, the need for blood transfusion in patients with PNH.
The DAHLIA study included 42 adults with PNH who had previously received Soliris for at least 6 months. These patients were then randomized to receive Soliris or Bkemv in one of two sequences delivered across two treatment periods. For study period 1 (weeks 1-53), patients were randomized to either 900 mg of intravenous (IV) Bkemv or Soliris every 14 days for 52 weeks, and for study period 2, the patients crossed over to the other treatment for 26 weeks.
Comparable efficacy was observed in both the parallel and crossover comparisons, with geometric mean values for trough total and unbound concentrations of Bkemv and Soliris similar between the treatment groups at all time points tested. Control of intravascular hemolysis was measured by lactate dehydrogenase at week 27 for the parallel comparison and by time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase from weeks 13 to 27, from weeks 39 to 53, and from weeks 65 to 79 for the crossover comparison.
The approval for Epysqli was on the basis of phase 3 trial findings, in which 50 patients with PNH were randomized to Epysqli or Soliris through week 26, after which the treatment was switched and provided until week 50. The findings showed a mean difference in lactate dehydrogenase level at week 26 between Epysqli and Soliris was 34.48 U/L, which fell within the predefined equivalence margin. The ratio of time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase between the two was 1.08 — also within the predefined equivalence margin — indicating bioequivalence between the biosimilar and reference product.
Similar to Soliris, the prescribing information for Bkemv and Epysqli includes a boxed warning associated with an increased risk for serious meningococcal infections. Because of this risk, both biosimilars are only available under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program that prescribers are required to enroll in.
According to drugs.com, Soliris (10 mg/mL) IV solution comes to about $6878 for a supply of 30 milliliters; cost information for the biosimilars is not available yet.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first, Bkemv (eculizumab-aeeb, Amgen), was approved in May, and the second, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh, Samsung Bioepis), was approved on July 22.
Soliris (eculizumab, Alexion) is an intravenous agent indicated for the treatment of PNH and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, as well as generalized myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optical spectrum disorder.
Both Bkemv and Epysqli are monoclonal antibodies that bind to complement protein C5 and have been approved previously in Europe. Availability for Bkemv in the United States will be delayed until March 1, 2025, under a patent settlement agreement between Alexion and Amgen.
The FDA approval for Bkemv was based on findings from the double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 DAHLIA study showing similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to Soliris in adults with PNH. The agents reduce the loss of red blood cells and, thus, the need for blood transfusion in patients with PNH.
The DAHLIA study included 42 adults with PNH who had previously received Soliris for at least 6 months. These patients were then randomized to receive Soliris or Bkemv in one of two sequences delivered across two treatment periods. For study period 1 (weeks 1-53), patients were randomized to either 900 mg of intravenous (IV) Bkemv or Soliris every 14 days for 52 weeks, and for study period 2, the patients crossed over to the other treatment for 26 weeks.
Comparable efficacy was observed in both the parallel and crossover comparisons, with geometric mean values for trough total and unbound concentrations of Bkemv and Soliris similar between the treatment groups at all time points tested. Control of intravascular hemolysis was measured by lactate dehydrogenase at week 27 for the parallel comparison and by time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase from weeks 13 to 27, from weeks 39 to 53, and from weeks 65 to 79 for the crossover comparison.
The approval for Epysqli was on the basis of phase 3 trial findings, in which 50 patients with PNH were randomized to Epysqli or Soliris through week 26, after which the treatment was switched and provided until week 50. The findings showed a mean difference in lactate dehydrogenase level at week 26 between Epysqli and Soliris was 34.48 U/L, which fell within the predefined equivalence margin. The ratio of time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase between the two was 1.08 — also within the predefined equivalence margin — indicating bioequivalence between the biosimilar and reference product.
Similar to Soliris, the prescribing information for Bkemv and Epysqli includes a boxed warning associated with an increased risk for serious meningococcal infections. Because of this risk, both biosimilars are only available under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program that prescribers are required to enroll in.
According to drugs.com, Soliris (10 mg/mL) IV solution comes to about $6878 for a supply of 30 milliliters; cost information for the biosimilars is not available yet.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first, Bkemv (eculizumab-aeeb, Amgen), was approved in May, and the second, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh, Samsung Bioepis), was approved on July 22.
Soliris (eculizumab, Alexion) is an intravenous agent indicated for the treatment of PNH and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, as well as generalized myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optical spectrum disorder.
Both Bkemv and Epysqli are monoclonal antibodies that bind to complement protein C5 and have been approved previously in Europe. Availability for Bkemv in the United States will be delayed until March 1, 2025, under a patent settlement agreement between Alexion and Amgen.
The FDA approval for Bkemv was based on findings from the double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 DAHLIA study showing similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to Soliris in adults with PNH. The agents reduce the loss of red blood cells and, thus, the need for blood transfusion in patients with PNH.
The DAHLIA study included 42 adults with PNH who had previously received Soliris for at least 6 months. These patients were then randomized to receive Soliris or Bkemv in one of two sequences delivered across two treatment periods. For study period 1 (weeks 1-53), patients were randomized to either 900 mg of intravenous (IV) Bkemv or Soliris every 14 days for 52 weeks, and for study period 2, the patients crossed over to the other treatment for 26 weeks.
Comparable efficacy was observed in both the parallel and crossover comparisons, with geometric mean values for trough total and unbound concentrations of Bkemv and Soliris similar between the treatment groups at all time points tested. Control of intravascular hemolysis was measured by lactate dehydrogenase at week 27 for the parallel comparison and by time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase from weeks 13 to 27, from weeks 39 to 53, and from weeks 65 to 79 for the crossover comparison.
The approval for Epysqli was on the basis of phase 3 trial findings, in which 50 patients with PNH were randomized to Epysqli or Soliris through week 26, after which the treatment was switched and provided until week 50. The findings showed a mean difference in lactate dehydrogenase level at week 26 between Epysqli and Soliris was 34.48 U/L, which fell within the predefined equivalence margin. The ratio of time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase between the two was 1.08 — also within the predefined equivalence margin — indicating bioequivalence between the biosimilar and reference product.
Similar to Soliris, the prescribing information for Bkemv and Epysqli includes a boxed warning associated with an increased risk for serious meningococcal infections. Because of this risk, both biosimilars are only available under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program that prescribers are required to enroll in.
According to drugs.com, Soliris (10 mg/mL) IV solution comes to about $6878 for a supply of 30 milliliters; cost information for the biosimilars is not available yet.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hemophilia: Novel Tx Also Cuts Bleeding in Kids
“In this study, once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa provided high sustained factor VIII activity and highly efficacious protection against bleeding episodes in children with severe hemophilia A, a population in which this goal has been difficult to achieve without burdensome treatment regimens,” report the authors in the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are from the phase 3, open-label XTEND-Kids study, in which first author Lynn Malec, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive Center for Bleeding Disorders and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at The Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, and colleagues enrolled 74 male pediatric patients with hemophilia A, including 38 under the age of 6 and 36 ages 6-12.
The participants received prophylaxis with once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa (50 IU per kg of body weight), for 52 weeks.
Prior to the treatment period, all patients had received factor VIII replacement therapy, with the exception of one who received the therapy on demand. Most (70%) received extended half-life products, such as doses twice a week or every 3 days, and the remaining 30% received standard half-life products, with dose regimens ranging from every 2 days to twice a week.
Over the course of the year-long study, none of the patients developed factor VIII inhibitors, neutralizing antibodies, a common complication in hemophilia A that prevents factor VIII replacement treatment from working to form clots.
In addition, no serious adverse events occurred that were determined to be related to efanesoctocog alfa.
“No inhibitors to factor VIII developed, most adverse events were not serious, and no adverse events led to discontinuation of efanesoctocog alfa,” the authors report.
In terms of efficacy, among 73 patients who were treated according to the protocol, the median annualized bleeding rate was 0.00 and the model-based mean rate was 0.61.
Overall, 47 patients (64%) experienced no treated bleeding episodes during the study, 65 (88%) had no spontaneous bleeding episodes, and 61 (82%) had no episodes of bleeding into joints.
Of 43 bleeding episodes, most (41; 95%) resolved with a single injection of efanesoctocog alfa.
Of note, “shortening the weekly administration interval was not deemed to be necessary in any patient during this study,” the authors add.
In comparison, other studies of children receiving other factor VIII products, including damoctocog alfa pegol, rurioctocog alfa pegol, and efmoroctocog alfa, show higher annualized bleeding rates of 2.9, 2.0, and 1.96, respectively, and studies showed the percentages of patients with no bleeding with those products were 23%, 38%, and 46%, respectively, compared with the 64% in the current study of efanesoctocog alfa.
“Although these clinical study results cannot be directly compared because of the differences in patient populations and study designs, the XTEND-Kids study showed favorable bleeding protection with efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis as compared with these extended half-life factor VIII products,” the authors report.
Data on the once-weekly monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which has the important benefit of being administered subcutaneously instead of intravenously, is limited in children under age 12 with severe hemophilia A and without factor VIII inhibitors, the authors note.
However, the mean annualized bleeding rate with efanesoctocog alfa appears improved compared with that observed in a small Japanese study of 13 children who received emicizumab prophylaxis every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, which showed annualized rates of treated bleeding episodes of 1.3 and 0.7 with the respective emicizumab regimens.
Results Compare With Findings in Adults
The results are similar to those reported among adults in the previous XTEND-1 phase 3 study, which was the basis for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in 2023 for routine prevention and on-demand treatment for the control of bleeding episodes, in addition to perioperative surgery for adults.
That approval was extended to children as well at the time, based on earlier interim results from the XTEND-Kids trial.
The annualized bleeding rate among adult patients treated with efanesoctocog alfa decreased from 2.96 to 0.69 over the 52 weeks, which was a significantly greater improvement compared with prestudy prophylaxis with conventional factor VIII prophylaxis (P < .001).
In children and adults alike, the decreased bleeding events were accompanied by improvements in physical health, pain, and joint health.
“Weekly prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa has the potential to provide long-term preservation of joint health,” the authors conclude.
Commenting in an editorial published concurrently with the study, Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Katharine Dormandy Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, Royal Free Hospital, London, England, underscored the need for a longer duration of prophylaxis, particularly in children.
“In children, the factor VIII protein has a shorter half-life than in adults, and intravenous administration of coagulation factors is particularly challenging, owing to poor venous access,” she explains.
“In this context, a notable outcome in [the study] is the achievement of once-weekly prophylaxis in children with sustained factor VIII levels through the week, which augurs well for protection in the context of delayed or missed doses.”
Dr. Chowdary adds that limitations include that “the study participants had pre-existing tolerance of factor VIII, because only those with previous exposure to factor VIII and without inhibitors were eligible for enrollment.”
“As such, immunogenicity needs to be assessed in other patients, especially those with no previous treatment with factor VIII.”
Further commenting to this news organization, Dr. Chowdary emphasized “the key takeaway for patients with hemophilia is that the notion of a single, lifelong treatment is outdated.”
“Regular reviews and adjustments to prophylaxis are necessary to ensure optimal control of hemophilia, aiming for zero bleeds each year,” Dr. Chowdary noted.
Furthermore, “the treatment regimen to achieve this must also align with the life goals of both patients and their parents,” she said.
The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. The authors’ and Dr. Chowdary’s disclosures are published with the study and editorial, respectively.
“In this study, once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa provided high sustained factor VIII activity and highly efficacious protection against bleeding episodes in children with severe hemophilia A, a population in which this goal has been difficult to achieve without burdensome treatment regimens,” report the authors in the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are from the phase 3, open-label XTEND-Kids study, in which first author Lynn Malec, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive Center for Bleeding Disorders and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at The Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, and colleagues enrolled 74 male pediatric patients with hemophilia A, including 38 under the age of 6 and 36 ages 6-12.
The participants received prophylaxis with once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa (50 IU per kg of body weight), for 52 weeks.
Prior to the treatment period, all patients had received factor VIII replacement therapy, with the exception of one who received the therapy on demand. Most (70%) received extended half-life products, such as doses twice a week or every 3 days, and the remaining 30% received standard half-life products, with dose regimens ranging from every 2 days to twice a week.
Over the course of the year-long study, none of the patients developed factor VIII inhibitors, neutralizing antibodies, a common complication in hemophilia A that prevents factor VIII replacement treatment from working to form clots.
In addition, no serious adverse events occurred that were determined to be related to efanesoctocog alfa.
“No inhibitors to factor VIII developed, most adverse events were not serious, and no adverse events led to discontinuation of efanesoctocog alfa,” the authors report.
In terms of efficacy, among 73 patients who were treated according to the protocol, the median annualized bleeding rate was 0.00 and the model-based mean rate was 0.61.
Overall, 47 patients (64%) experienced no treated bleeding episodes during the study, 65 (88%) had no spontaneous bleeding episodes, and 61 (82%) had no episodes of bleeding into joints.
Of 43 bleeding episodes, most (41; 95%) resolved with a single injection of efanesoctocog alfa.
Of note, “shortening the weekly administration interval was not deemed to be necessary in any patient during this study,” the authors add.
In comparison, other studies of children receiving other factor VIII products, including damoctocog alfa pegol, rurioctocog alfa pegol, and efmoroctocog alfa, show higher annualized bleeding rates of 2.9, 2.0, and 1.96, respectively, and studies showed the percentages of patients with no bleeding with those products were 23%, 38%, and 46%, respectively, compared with the 64% in the current study of efanesoctocog alfa.
“Although these clinical study results cannot be directly compared because of the differences in patient populations and study designs, the XTEND-Kids study showed favorable bleeding protection with efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis as compared with these extended half-life factor VIII products,” the authors report.
Data on the once-weekly monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which has the important benefit of being administered subcutaneously instead of intravenously, is limited in children under age 12 with severe hemophilia A and without factor VIII inhibitors, the authors note.
However, the mean annualized bleeding rate with efanesoctocog alfa appears improved compared with that observed in a small Japanese study of 13 children who received emicizumab prophylaxis every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, which showed annualized rates of treated bleeding episodes of 1.3 and 0.7 with the respective emicizumab regimens.
Results Compare With Findings in Adults
The results are similar to those reported among adults in the previous XTEND-1 phase 3 study, which was the basis for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in 2023 for routine prevention and on-demand treatment for the control of bleeding episodes, in addition to perioperative surgery for adults.
That approval was extended to children as well at the time, based on earlier interim results from the XTEND-Kids trial.
The annualized bleeding rate among adult patients treated with efanesoctocog alfa decreased from 2.96 to 0.69 over the 52 weeks, which was a significantly greater improvement compared with prestudy prophylaxis with conventional factor VIII prophylaxis (P < .001).
In children and adults alike, the decreased bleeding events were accompanied by improvements in physical health, pain, and joint health.
“Weekly prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa has the potential to provide long-term preservation of joint health,” the authors conclude.
Commenting in an editorial published concurrently with the study, Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Katharine Dormandy Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, Royal Free Hospital, London, England, underscored the need for a longer duration of prophylaxis, particularly in children.
“In children, the factor VIII protein has a shorter half-life than in adults, and intravenous administration of coagulation factors is particularly challenging, owing to poor venous access,” she explains.
“In this context, a notable outcome in [the study] is the achievement of once-weekly prophylaxis in children with sustained factor VIII levels through the week, which augurs well for protection in the context of delayed or missed doses.”
Dr. Chowdary adds that limitations include that “the study participants had pre-existing tolerance of factor VIII, because only those with previous exposure to factor VIII and without inhibitors were eligible for enrollment.”
“As such, immunogenicity needs to be assessed in other patients, especially those with no previous treatment with factor VIII.”
Further commenting to this news organization, Dr. Chowdary emphasized “the key takeaway for patients with hemophilia is that the notion of a single, lifelong treatment is outdated.”
“Regular reviews and adjustments to prophylaxis are necessary to ensure optimal control of hemophilia, aiming for zero bleeds each year,” Dr. Chowdary noted.
Furthermore, “the treatment regimen to achieve this must also align with the life goals of both patients and their parents,” she said.
The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. The authors’ and Dr. Chowdary’s disclosures are published with the study and editorial, respectively.
“In this study, once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa provided high sustained factor VIII activity and highly efficacious protection against bleeding episodes in children with severe hemophilia A, a population in which this goal has been difficult to achieve without burdensome treatment regimens,” report the authors in the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are from the phase 3, open-label XTEND-Kids study, in which first author Lynn Malec, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive Center for Bleeding Disorders and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at The Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, and colleagues enrolled 74 male pediatric patients with hemophilia A, including 38 under the age of 6 and 36 ages 6-12.
The participants received prophylaxis with once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa (50 IU per kg of body weight), for 52 weeks.
Prior to the treatment period, all patients had received factor VIII replacement therapy, with the exception of one who received the therapy on demand. Most (70%) received extended half-life products, such as doses twice a week or every 3 days, and the remaining 30% received standard half-life products, with dose regimens ranging from every 2 days to twice a week.
Over the course of the year-long study, none of the patients developed factor VIII inhibitors, neutralizing antibodies, a common complication in hemophilia A that prevents factor VIII replacement treatment from working to form clots.
In addition, no serious adverse events occurred that were determined to be related to efanesoctocog alfa.
“No inhibitors to factor VIII developed, most adverse events were not serious, and no adverse events led to discontinuation of efanesoctocog alfa,” the authors report.
In terms of efficacy, among 73 patients who were treated according to the protocol, the median annualized bleeding rate was 0.00 and the model-based mean rate was 0.61.
Overall, 47 patients (64%) experienced no treated bleeding episodes during the study, 65 (88%) had no spontaneous bleeding episodes, and 61 (82%) had no episodes of bleeding into joints.
Of 43 bleeding episodes, most (41; 95%) resolved with a single injection of efanesoctocog alfa.
Of note, “shortening the weekly administration interval was not deemed to be necessary in any patient during this study,” the authors add.
In comparison, other studies of children receiving other factor VIII products, including damoctocog alfa pegol, rurioctocog alfa pegol, and efmoroctocog alfa, show higher annualized bleeding rates of 2.9, 2.0, and 1.96, respectively, and studies showed the percentages of patients with no bleeding with those products were 23%, 38%, and 46%, respectively, compared with the 64% in the current study of efanesoctocog alfa.
“Although these clinical study results cannot be directly compared because of the differences in patient populations and study designs, the XTEND-Kids study showed favorable bleeding protection with efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis as compared with these extended half-life factor VIII products,” the authors report.
Data on the once-weekly monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which has the important benefit of being administered subcutaneously instead of intravenously, is limited in children under age 12 with severe hemophilia A and without factor VIII inhibitors, the authors note.
However, the mean annualized bleeding rate with efanesoctocog alfa appears improved compared with that observed in a small Japanese study of 13 children who received emicizumab prophylaxis every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, which showed annualized rates of treated bleeding episodes of 1.3 and 0.7 with the respective emicizumab regimens.
Results Compare With Findings in Adults
The results are similar to those reported among adults in the previous XTEND-1 phase 3 study, which was the basis for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in 2023 for routine prevention and on-demand treatment for the control of bleeding episodes, in addition to perioperative surgery for adults.
That approval was extended to children as well at the time, based on earlier interim results from the XTEND-Kids trial.
The annualized bleeding rate among adult patients treated with efanesoctocog alfa decreased from 2.96 to 0.69 over the 52 weeks, which was a significantly greater improvement compared with prestudy prophylaxis with conventional factor VIII prophylaxis (P < .001).
In children and adults alike, the decreased bleeding events were accompanied by improvements in physical health, pain, and joint health.
“Weekly prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa has the potential to provide long-term preservation of joint health,” the authors conclude.
Commenting in an editorial published concurrently with the study, Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Katharine Dormandy Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, Royal Free Hospital, London, England, underscored the need for a longer duration of prophylaxis, particularly in children.
“In children, the factor VIII protein has a shorter half-life than in adults, and intravenous administration of coagulation factors is particularly challenging, owing to poor venous access,” she explains.
“In this context, a notable outcome in [the study] is the achievement of once-weekly prophylaxis in children with sustained factor VIII levels through the week, which augurs well for protection in the context of delayed or missed doses.”
Dr. Chowdary adds that limitations include that “the study participants had pre-existing tolerance of factor VIII, because only those with previous exposure to factor VIII and without inhibitors were eligible for enrollment.”
“As such, immunogenicity needs to be assessed in other patients, especially those with no previous treatment with factor VIII.”
Further commenting to this news organization, Dr. Chowdary emphasized “the key takeaway for patients with hemophilia is that the notion of a single, lifelong treatment is outdated.”
“Regular reviews and adjustments to prophylaxis are necessary to ensure optimal control of hemophilia, aiming for zero bleeds each year,” Dr. Chowdary noted.
Furthermore, “the treatment regimen to achieve this must also align with the life goals of both patients and their parents,” she said.
The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. The authors’ and Dr. Chowdary’s disclosures are published with the study and editorial, respectively.
Hemophilia: Marstacimab Sustains Long-Term Bleeding Reduction
“In the long-term extension study treatment with marstacimab demonstrates sustained or improved efficacy for treated and total annualized bleeding rates (ABR) in adults and adolescents with hemophilia A or hemophilia B in this data set of patients without inhibitors,” first author Shamsah Kazani, MD, of Pfizer, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in presenting the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.
“The majority of the patients from the pivotal study chose to transition into the long-term extension, and we are finding that these patients are highly compliant with their weekly marstacimab dose, with more than 98% compliance,” Dr. Kazani said.
Marstacimab targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor, a natural anticoagulation protein that prevents the formation of blood clots, and is administered as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection.
The therapy has been granted fast-track and orphan drug status in the United States, in addition to orphan drug status in the European Union for the prevention of hemophilia bleeding episodes.
If approved, the therapy would become the first once-weekly subcutaneous therapy for either hemophilia A or B. Emicizumab, which also is administered subcutaneously, is only approved to prevent or reduce bleeding in hemophilia A.
The latest findings are from an interim analysis of a long-term extension study involving 107 of 116 patients who were in the non-inhibitor cohort in the pivotal BASIS trial. Data from that trial, involving patients aged 12-75 previously showed favorable outcomes in the non-inhibitor cohort receiving marstacimab, and a cohort of patients with inhibitors is ongoing.
Participants entering the extension study were continuing on 150-mg subcutaneous doses of marstacimab, which had been administered in the BASIS study for 12 months after a loading dose of 300 mg.
Of the patients, 89 (83%) were adult and 18 (17%) were adolescents. Overall, they had a mean age of 29 years; 83 (76%) patients had hemophilia A, while 24 (22.4%) had hemophilia B.
Prior to switching to marstacimab treatment, 32 patients had been treated with factor replacement therapy on demand, while 75 received the therapy as routine prophylaxis.
With a mean additional duration of follow-up of 12.5 months in the extension study (range, 1-23.1 months), the overall rate of compliance was very high, at 98.9%.
In the pivotal and extension studies combined, 21% of patients had their marstacimab dose increased from 150 mg to 300 mg weekly, which was an option if patients had 2 or more spontaneous bleeds in a major joint while on the 150-mg dose.
In the hemophilia A and B groups combined, those previously treated with on-demand factor replacement therapy (n = 33) had substantial reductions in estimated ABR for treated bleeds from the baseline of 38.0 prior to initiating marstacimab, to 3.2 after 12 months of the treatment in the trial (P < .001).That reduction was sustained at an ABR of 3.7 after the mean additional 12.5 months in the extension study.
The corresponding estimated ABR rates in the routine prophylaxis group (n = 83) were 7.9 at baseline, 5.1 at the end of the trial, and 2.8 in the extension study analysis interim cutoff.
The authors then further stratified the results based on hemophilia A or B groups: Among patients with hemophilia A (n = 26), the on-demand subgroup had a baseline ABR of 40.6, which dropped substantially to just 3.6 after 12 months on marstacimab in the pivotal trial and was sustained at 5.3 in the extension study.
Similar trends were observed in the hemophilia A group who received routine prophylaxis (n = 65), with an ABR of 9.2 at baseline; 5.3 after the trial, and 3.1 at the extension study interim.
The trends were similar among those with hemophilia B, albeit with lower numbers of patients, consistent with hemophilia B being more rare.
The mean ABR at baseline in the on-demand group of those patients (n = 7) was 28.7, which was reduced to just 1.7 after the 12-months of active marstacimab treatment and sustained at 1.8 by the interim analysis of the extension study.
Of hemophilia B patients previously on routine prophylaxis (n = 18), the mean ABR at baseline was 3.3 and was at 4.7 at the end of the trial. The rate declined to 2.3 in the extension phase.
“We see that these trends of improvement with marstacimab are sustained into the long-term extension study, both in the on-demand group and in the routine prophylaxis groups,” Dr. Kazani said.
Importantly, she noted that marstacimab continued to be well tolerated and safe in the long-term extension study, with no reports of thromboembolic events, which had been a concern with the drug.
Commenting on the study, Margaret Ragni, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and clinical and translational research in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that marstacimab could represent an important addition in the prevention of bleeds in hemophilia. “[If marstacimab is approved], hemophilia B patients [will] have a drug that can be given subcutaneously weekly to rebalance hemostasis, reducing bleeds, just as hemophilia A patients have with emicizumab.”
Dr. Ragni underscored, however, that caveats include the important point that “neither [marstacimab nor emicizumab] treats bleeds. For that, standard factor replacement therapy or bypass for inhibitors, would be required.”
Also, “a limitation with marstacimab is the lack of weight-dependent dosing. All use one dose [however, in the studies they did use 150 mg or 300 mg]. ... Furthermore, emicizumab can be given weekly, biweekly, or monthly, while that [variation in dosing] is not yet studied with marstacimab.”
And while no thromboembolic events occurred during the trial, Dr. Ragni underscored that “longer-term follow-up is needed.”
The marstacimab long-term extension study is designed to extend to 7 years of follow-up.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer, and Dr. Kazani is an employee of Pfizer. Dr. Ragni reported no disclosures.
“In the long-term extension study treatment with marstacimab demonstrates sustained or improved efficacy for treated and total annualized bleeding rates (ABR) in adults and adolescents with hemophilia A or hemophilia B in this data set of patients without inhibitors,” first author Shamsah Kazani, MD, of Pfizer, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in presenting the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.
“The majority of the patients from the pivotal study chose to transition into the long-term extension, and we are finding that these patients are highly compliant with their weekly marstacimab dose, with more than 98% compliance,” Dr. Kazani said.
Marstacimab targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor, a natural anticoagulation protein that prevents the formation of blood clots, and is administered as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection.
The therapy has been granted fast-track and orphan drug status in the United States, in addition to orphan drug status in the European Union for the prevention of hemophilia bleeding episodes.
If approved, the therapy would become the first once-weekly subcutaneous therapy for either hemophilia A or B. Emicizumab, which also is administered subcutaneously, is only approved to prevent or reduce bleeding in hemophilia A.
The latest findings are from an interim analysis of a long-term extension study involving 107 of 116 patients who were in the non-inhibitor cohort in the pivotal BASIS trial. Data from that trial, involving patients aged 12-75 previously showed favorable outcomes in the non-inhibitor cohort receiving marstacimab, and a cohort of patients with inhibitors is ongoing.
Participants entering the extension study were continuing on 150-mg subcutaneous doses of marstacimab, which had been administered in the BASIS study for 12 months after a loading dose of 300 mg.
Of the patients, 89 (83%) were adult and 18 (17%) were adolescents. Overall, they had a mean age of 29 years; 83 (76%) patients had hemophilia A, while 24 (22.4%) had hemophilia B.
Prior to switching to marstacimab treatment, 32 patients had been treated with factor replacement therapy on demand, while 75 received the therapy as routine prophylaxis.
With a mean additional duration of follow-up of 12.5 months in the extension study (range, 1-23.1 months), the overall rate of compliance was very high, at 98.9%.
In the pivotal and extension studies combined, 21% of patients had their marstacimab dose increased from 150 mg to 300 mg weekly, which was an option if patients had 2 or more spontaneous bleeds in a major joint while on the 150-mg dose.
In the hemophilia A and B groups combined, those previously treated with on-demand factor replacement therapy (n = 33) had substantial reductions in estimated ABR for treated bleeds from the baseline of 38.0 prior to initiating marstacimab, to 3.2 after 12 months of the treatment in the trial (P < .001).That reduction was sustained at an ABR of 3.7 after the mean additional 12.5 months in the extension study.
The corresponding estimated ABR rates in the routine prophylaxis group (n = 83) were 7.9 at baseline, 5.1 at the end of the trial, and 2.8 in the extension study analysis interim cutoff.
The authors then further stratified the results based on hemophilia A or B groups: Among patients with hemophilia A (n = 26), the on-demand subgroup had a baseline ABR of 40.6, which dropped substantially to just 3.6 after 12 months on marstacimab in the pivotal trial and was sustained at 5.3 in the extension study.
Similar trends were observed in the hemophilia A group who received routine prophylaxis (n = 65), with an ABR of 9.2 at baseline; 5.3 after the trial, and 3.1 at the extension study interim.
The trends were similar among those with hemophilia B, albeit with lower numbers of patients, consistent with hemophilia B being more rare.
The mean ABR at baseline in the on-demand group of those patients (n = 7) was 28.7, which was reduced to just 1.7 after the 12-months of active marstacimab treatment and sustained at 1.8 by the interim analysis of the extension study.
Of hemophilia B patients previously on routine prophylaxis (n = 18), the mean ABR at baseline was 3.3 and was at 4.7 at the end of the trial. The rate declined to 2.3 in the extension phase.
“We see that these trends of improvement with marstacimab are sustained into the long-term extension study, both in the on-demand group and in the routine prophylaxis groups,” Dr. Kazani said.
Importantly, she noted that marstacimab continued to be well tolerated and safe in the long-term extension study, with no reports of thromboembolic events, which had been a concern with the drug.
Commenting on the study, Margaret Ragni, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and clinical and translational research in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that marstacimab could represent an important addition in the prevention of bleeds in hemophilia. “[If marstacimab is approved], hemophilia B patients [will] have a drug that can be given subcutaneously weekly to rebalance hemostasis, reducing bleeds, just as hemophilia A patients have with emicizumab.”
Dr. Ragni underscored, however, that caveats include the important point that “neither [marstacimab nor emicizumab] treats bleeds. For that, standard factor replacement therapy or bypass for inhibitors, would be required.”
Also, “a limitation with marstacimab is the lack of weight-dependent dosing. All use one dose [however, in the studies they did use 150 mg or 300 mg]. ... Furthermore, emicizumab can be given weekly, biweekly, or monthly, while that [variation in dosing] is not yet studied with marstacimab.”
And while no thromboembolic events occurred during the trial, Dr. Ragni underscored that “longer-term follow-up is needed.”
The marstacimab long-term extension study is designed to extend to 7 years of follow-up.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer, and Dr. Kazani is an employee of Pfizer. Dr. Ragni reported no disclosures.
“In the long-term extension study treatment with marstacimab demonstrates sustained or improved efficacy for treated and total annualized bleeding rates (ABR) in adults and adolescents with hemophilia A or hemophilia B in this data set of patients without inhibitors,” first author Shamsah Kazani, MD, of Pfizer, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in presenting the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.
“The majority of the patients from the pivotal study chose to transition into the long-term extension, and we are finding that these patients are highly compliant with their weekly marstacimab dose, with more than 98% compliance,” Dr. Kazani said.
Marstacimab targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor, a natural anticoagulation protein that prevents the formation of blood clots, and is administered as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection.
The therapy has been granted fast-track and orphan drug status in the United States, in addition to orphan drug status in the European Union for the prevention of hemophilia bleeding episodes.
If approved, the therapy would become the first once-weekly subcutaneous therapy for either hemophilia A or B. Emicizumab, which also is administered subcutaneously, is only approved to prevent or reduce bleeding in hemophilia A.
The latest findings are from an interim analysis of a long-term extension study involving 107 of 116 patients who were in the non-inhibitor cohort in the pivotal BASIS trial. Data from that trial, involving patients aged 12-75 previously showed favorable outcomes in the non-inhibitor cohort receiving marstacimab, and a cohort of patients with inhibitors is ongoing.
Participants entering the extension study were continuing on 150-mg subcutaneous doses of marstacimab, which had been administered in the BASIS study for 12 months after a loading dose of 300 mg.
Of the patients, 89 (83%) were adult and 18 (17%) were adolescents. Overall, they had a mean age of 29 years; 83 (76%) patients had hemophilia A, while 24 (22.4%) had hemophilia B.
Prior to switching to marstacimab treatment, 32 patients had been treated with factor replacement therapy on demand, while 75 received the therapy as routine prophylaxis.
With a mean additional duration of follow-up of 12.5 months in the extension study (range, 1-23.1 months), the overall rate of compliance was very high, at 98.9%.
In the pivotal and extension studies combined, 21% of patients had their marstacimab dose increased from 150 mg to 300 mg weekly, which was an option if patients had 2 or more spontaneous bleeds in a major joint while on the 150-mg dose.
In the hemophilia A and B groups combined, those previously treated with on-demand factor replacement therapy (n = 33) had substantial reductions in estimated ABR for treated bleeds from the baseline of 38.0 prior to initiating marstacimab, to 3.2 after 12 months of the treatment in the trial (P < .001).That reduction was sustained at an ABR of 3.7 after the mean additional 12.5 months in the extension study.
The corresponding estimated ABR rates in the routine prophylaxis group (n = 83) were 7.9 at baseline, 5.1 at the end of the trial, and 2.8 in the extension study analysis interim cutoff.
The authors then further stratified the results based on hemophilia A or B groups: Among patients with hemophilia A (n = 26), the on-demand subgroup had a baseline ABR of 40.6, which dropped substantially to just 3.6 after 12 months on marstacimab in the pivotal trial and was sustained at 5.3 in the extension study.
Similar trends were observed in the hemophilia A group who received routine prophylaxis (n = 65), with an ABR of 9.2 at baseline; 5.3 after the trial, and 3.1 at the extension study interim.
The trends were similar among those with hemophilia B, albeit with lower numbers of patients, consistent with hemophilia B being more rare.
The mean ABR at baseline in the on-demand group of those patients (n = 7) was 28.7, which was reduced to just 1.7 after the 12-months of active marstacimab treatment and sustained at 1.8 by the interim analysis of the extension study.
Of hemophilia B patients previously on routine prophylaxis (n = 18), the mean ABR at baseline was 3.3 and was at 4.7 at the end of the trial. The rate declined to 2.3 in the extension phase.
“We see that these trends of improvement with marstacimab are sustained into the long-term extension study, both in the on-demand group and in the routine prophylaxis groups,” Dr. Kazani said.
Importantly, she noted that marstacimab continued to be well tolerated and safe in the long-term extension study, with no reports of thromboembolic events, which had been a concern with the drug.
Commenting on the study, Margaret Ragni, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and clinical and translational research in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that marstacimab could represent an important addition in the prevention of bleeds in hemophilia. “[If marstacimab is approved], hemophilia B patients [will] have a drug that can be given subcutaneously weekly to rebalance hemostasis, reducing bleeds, just as hemophilia A patients have with emicizumab.”
Dr. Ragni underscored, however, that caveats include the important point that “neither [marstacimab nor emicizumab] treats bleeds. For that, standard factor replacement therapy or bypass for inhibitors, would be required.”
Also, “a limitation with marstacimab is the lack of weight-dependent dosing. All use one dose [however, in the studies they did use 150 mg or 300 mg]. ... Furthermore, emicizumab can be given weekly, biweekly, or monthly, while that [variation in dosing] is not yet studied with marstacimab.”
And while no thromboembolic events occurred during the trial, Dr. Ragni underscored that “longer-term follow-up is needed.”
The marstacimab long-term extension study is designed to extend to 7 years of follow-up.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer, and Dr. Kazani is an employee of Pfizer. Dr. Ragni reported no disclosures.
FROM EHA 2024
Beta Thalassemia: Pricey Gene Therapy Hits The Mark
With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.
Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.
Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.
A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.
There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.
“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat
Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)
The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.
In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”
In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.
Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.
Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.
But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In
Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.
In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.
Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective
As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”
The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”
In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications
What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.
In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.
“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.
One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”
Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief
Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)
As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.
Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.
With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.
Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.
Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.
A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.
There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.
“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat
Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)
The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.
In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”
In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.
Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.
Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.
But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In
Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.
In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.
Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective
As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”
The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”
In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications
What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.
In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.
“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.
One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”
Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief
Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)
As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.
Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.
With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.
Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.
Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.
A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.
There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.
“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat
Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)
The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.
In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”
In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.
Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.
Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.
But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In
Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.
In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.
Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective
As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”
The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”
In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications
What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.
In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.
“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.
One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”
Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief
Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)
As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.
Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.
SCD: Delaying Transition to Adult Care Poses Risks
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
- Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.
TAKEAWAY:
- Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
- Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
- However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.
IN PRACTICE:
According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.
LIMITATIONS:
Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
- Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.
TAKEAWAY:
- Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
- Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
- However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.
IN PRACTICE:
According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.
LIMITATIONS:
Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
- Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.
TAKEAWAY:
- Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
- Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
- However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.
IN PRACTICE:
According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.
LIMITATIONS:
Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.