Bleeding Disorders

It’s a problem many clinicians would love to have: A whole variety of new or emerging therapeutic options to use in the care of their patients.

In a session titled “Hemophilia Update: Our Cup Runneth Over,” presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, experts in the treatment of bleeding disorders discussed the optimal use of factor concentrates in people with hemophilia, new and investigational alternatives to factor concentrates, and the promise of long-time control or even cure with gene therapy.
 

Factor concentrates

Prophylaxis – as opposed to episodic treatment – is the standard of care in the use of factor concentrates in patients with hemophilia, said Ming Y. Lim, MB BChir, from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

“Effective prophylaxis is an ongoing collaborative effort that relies on shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician,” she told the audience.

As the complexity of therapeutic options, including gene therapy, continues to increase “it is critical that both patients and clinicians are actively involved in this collaborative process to optimize treatment and overall patient outcomes,” she added.

Historically, clinicians who treat patients with hemophilia aimed for trough levels of factor concentrates of at least 1% to prevent spontaneous joint bleeding. But as updated World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines now recommend, trough levels should be sufficient to prevent spontaneous bleeding based on the individual patient’s bleeding phenotype and activity levels, starting in the range between 3% and 5%, and going higher as necessary.

“The appropriate target trough level is that at which a person with hemophilia experiences zero bleeds while pursuing an active or sedentary lifestyle,” she said.

The choice of factor concentrates between standard and extended half-life products will depend on multiple factors, including availability, patient and provider preferences, cost, and access to assays for monitoring extended half-life products.

The prolonged action of extended half-life products translates into dosing twice per week or every 3 days for factor VIII concentrates, and every 7-14 days for factor IX concentrates.

“All available extended half-life products have been shown to be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of bleeds, with no evidence for any clinical safety issues,” Dr. Lim said.

There are theoretical concerns, however, regarding the lifelong use of PEGylated clotting factor concentrates, leading to some variations in the regulatory approval for some PEGylated product intended for bleeding prophylaxis in children with hemophilia, she noted.

The pharmacokinetics of prophylaxis with factor concentrates can vary according to age, body mass, blood type, and von Willebrand factor levels, so WFH guidelines recommend pharmacokinetic assessment of people with hemophilia for optimization of prophylaxis, she said.
 

Factor mimetic and rebalancing therapies

With the commercial availability of one factor mimetic for treatment of hemophilia A and with other factor mimetics and rebalancing therapies such as fitusiran in the works, it raises the question, “Is this the beginning of the end of the use of factor?” said Alice Ma, MD, FACP, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Factors that may determine the answer to that question include the convenience of subcutaneous administration of factor VIII mimetics compared with intravenous delivery of factor concentrates, relative cost of factors versus nonfactor products, and safety.

She reviewed the current state of alternatives to factor concentrates, including the factor mimetic emicizumab (Hemlibra), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors, and is currently the only FDA-approved and licensed agent in its class.

Although emicizumab is widely regarded as a major advance, there are still unanswered clinical questions about its long-term use, Dr. Ma said. It is unknown, for example, whether it can prevent inhibitor development in previously untreated patients, and whether it can prevent intracranial hemorrhage in early years of life prior to the start of traditional prophylaxis.

It’s also unknown whether the factor VIII mimetic activity of emicizumab provides the same physiological benefits of coagulation factors, and the mechanism of thrombotic adverse events seen with this agent is still unclear, she added.

Other factor VIII mimetics in the pipeline include Mim8, which is being developed in Denmark by Novo Nordisk; this is a next-generation bispecific antibody with enhanced activity over emicizumab in both mouse models and in vitro hemophilia A assays. There are also two others bispecific antibodies designed to generate thrombin in preclinical development: BS-027125 (Bioverativ, U.S.) and NIBX-2101 (Takeda, Japan).

One of the most promising rebalancing factors in development is fitusiran, a small interfering RNA molecule that targets mRNA encoding antithrombin. As reported during ASH 2021, fitusiran was associated with an approximately 90% reduction in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A and hemophilia B, both with inhibitors, in two clinical trials. It was described at the meeting “as a great leap forward” in the treatment of hemophilia.

However, during its clinical development fitusiran has been consistently associated with thrombotic complications, Dr. Ma noted.

Also in development are several drugs targeted against tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), an anticoagulant protein that inhibits early phases of the procoagulant response. These agents included marstacimab (Pfizer, U.S.) which has been reported to normalize coagulation in plasma from hemophilia patients ex vivo and is currently being evaluated in patients with hemophilia A and B. There is also MG1113 (Green Cross Corporation, South Korea), a monoclonal antibody currently being tested in healthy volunteers, and BAX499 (Takeda), an aptamer derived from recombinant human TFPI that has been shown to inhibit TFPI in vitro and in vivo. However, development of this agent is on hold due to bleeding in study subjects, Dr. Ma noted.

“It is really notable that none of the replacements of factor have been free of thrombotic side effects,” Dr. Ma said. “And so I think it shows that you mess with Mother Nature at your peril. If you poke at the hemostasis-thrombosis arm and reduce antithrombotic proteins, and something triggers bleeding and you start to treat with a therapy for hemorrhage, it’s not a surprise that the first patient treated with fitusiran had a thrombosis, and I think we were just not potentially savvy enough to predict that.”
 

Considerable optimism over gene therapy

“There is now repeated proof of concept success for hemophilia A and B gene therapy. I think this supports the considerable optimism that’s really driving this field,” said Lindsey A. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

She reviewed adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector and AAV-mediated gene transfer approaches for hemophilia A and B.

There are currently four clinical trials of gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B, and five for patients with hemophilia A.

Because AAV efficiently targets the liver, most safety considerations about systemic AAV-mediated gene therapy are focused around potential hepatotoxicity, Dr. George said.

“Thankfully, short-term safety in the context of hemophilia has really been quite good,” she said.

Patients who undergo gene therapy for hemophilia are typically monitored twice weekly for 3 months for evidence of a capsid-specific CD8 T cell response, also called a capsid immune response. This presents with transient transaminase elevations (primarily ALT) and a decline in factor VIII and factor IX activity.

In clinical trials for patients with hemophilia, the capsid immune response has limited the efficacy of the therapy in the short term, but has not been a major cause for safety concerns. It is typically managed with glucocorticoids or other immunomodulating agents such as mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus.

There have also been reported cases of transaminase elevations without evidence of a capsid immune response, which warrants further investigation, she added.

Regarding efficacy, she noted that across clinical trials, the observed annualized bleeding rate has been less than 1%, despite heterogeneity of vectors and dosing used.

“That’s obviously quite optimistic for the field, but it also sort of raises the point that the heterogeneity at which we’re achieving the same phenotypic observations deserves a bit of a deeper dive,” she said.

Although hemophilia B gene transfer appears to be durable, the same cannot be said as yet for hemophilia A.

In canine models for hemophilia A and B, factor VIII and factor IX expression have been demonstrated for 8-10 years post vector, and in humans factor IX expression in patients with hemophilia B has been reported for up to 8 years.

In contrast, in the three hemophilia A trials in which patients have been followed for a minimum of 2 years, there was an approximately 40% loss of transgene vector from year 1 to year 2 with two vectors, but not a third.

Potential explanations for the loss of expression seen include an unfolded protein response, promoter silence, and an ongoing undetected or unmitigated immune response to AAV or to the transgene.

Regarding the future of gene therapy, Dr. George said that “we anticipate that there will be licensed vectors in the very near future, and predicted that gene therapy “will fulfill its promise to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care.”

Dr. Lim disclosed honoraria from several companies and travel support from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ma disclosed honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Dr. George disclosed FVIII-QQ patents and royalties, research funding from AskBio, and consulting activities/advisory board participation with others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s a problem many clinicians would love to have: A whole variety of new or emerging therapeutic options to use in the care of their patients.

In a session titled “Hemophilia Update: Our Cup Runneth Over,” presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, experts in the treatment of bleeding disorders discussed the optimal use of factor concentrates in people with hemophilia, new and investigational alternatives to factor concentrates, and the promise of long-time control or even cure with gene therapy.
 

Factor concentrates

Prophylaxis – as opposed to episodic treatment – is the standard of care in the use of factor concentrates in patients with hemophilia, said Ming Y. Lim, MB BChir, from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

“Effective prophylaxis is an ongoing collaborative effort that relies on shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician,” she told the audience.

As the complexity of therapeutic options, including gene therapy, continues to increase “it is critical that both patients and clinicians are actively involved in this collaborative process to optimize treatment and overall patient outcomes,” she added.

Historically, clinicians who treat patients with hemophilia aimed for trough levels of factor concentrates of at least 1% to prevent spontaneous joint bleeding. But as updated World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines now recommend, trough levels should be sufficient to prevent spontaneous bleeding based on the individual patient’s bleeding phenotype and activity levels, starting in the range between 3% and 5%, and going higher as necessary.

“The appropriate target trough level is that at which a person with hemophilia experiences zero bleeds while pursuing an active or sedentary lifestyle,” she said.

The choice of factor concentrates between standard and extended half-life products will depend on multiple factors, including availability, patient and provider preferences, cost, and access to assays for monitoring extended half-life products.

The prolonged action of extended half-life products translates into dosing twice per week or every 3 days for factor VIII concentrates, and every 7-14 days for factor IX concentrates.

“All available extended half-life products have been shown to be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of bleeds, with no evidence for any clinical safety issues,” Dr. Lim said.

There are theoretical concerns, however, regarding the lifelong use of PEGylated clotting factor concentrates, leading to some variations in the regulatory approval for some PEGylated product intended for bleeding prophylaxis in children with hemophilia, she noted.

The pharmacokinetics of prophylaxis with factor concentrates can vary according to age, body mass, blood type, and von Willebrand factor levels, so WFH guidelines recommend pharmacokinetic assessment of people with hemophilia for optimization of prophylaxis, she said.
 

Factor mimetic and rebalancing therapies

With the commercial availability of one factor mimetic for treatment of hemophilia A and with other factor mimetics and rebalancing therapies such as fitusiran in the works, it raises the question, “Is this the beginning of the end of the use of factor?” said Alice Ma, MD, FACP, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Factors that may determine the answer to that question include the convenience of subcutaneous administration of factor VIII mimetics compared with intravenous delivery of factor concentrates, relative cost of factors versus nonfactor products, and safety.

She reviewed the current state of alternatives to factor concentrates, including the factor mimetic emicizumab (Hemlibra), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors, and is currently the only FDA-approved and licensed agent in its class.

Although emicizumab is widely regarded as a major advance, there are still unanswered clinical questions about its long-term use, Dr. Ma said. It is unknown, for example, whether it can prevent inhibitor development in previously untreated patients, and whether it can prevent intracranial hemorrhage in early years of life prior to the start of traditional prophylaxis.

It’s also unknown whether the factor VIII mimetic activity of emicizumab provides the same physiological benefits of coagulation factors, and the mechanism of thrombotic adverse events seen with this agent is still unclear, she added.

Other factor VIII mimetics in the pipeline include Mim8, which is being developed in Denmark by Novo Nordisk; this is a next-generation bispecific antibody with enhanced activity over emicizumab in both mouse models and in vitro hemophilia A assays. There are also two others bispecific antibodies designed to generate thrombin in preclinical development: BS-027125 (Bioverativ, U.S.) and NIBX-2101 (Takeda, Japan).

One of the most promising rebalancing factors in development is fitusiran, a small interfering RNA molecule that targets mRNA encoding antithrombin. As reported during ASH 2021, fitusiran was associated with an approximately 90% reduction in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A and hemophilia B, both with inhibitors, in two clinical trials. It was described at the meeting “as a great leap forward” in the treatment of hemophilia.

However, during its clinical development fitusiran has been consistently associated with thrombotic complications, Dr. Ma noted.

Also in development are several drugs targeted against tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), an anticoagulant protein that inhibits early phases of the procoagulant response. These agents included marstacimab (Pfizer, U.S.) which has been reported to normalize coagulation in plasma from hemophilia patients ex vivo and is currently being evaluated in patients with hemophilia A and B. There is also MG1113 (Green Cross Corporation, South Korea), a monoclonal antibody currently being tested in healthy volunteers, and BAX499 (Takeda), an aptamer derived from recombinant human TFPI that has been shown to inhibit TFPI in vitro and in vivo. However, development of this agent is on hold due to bleeding in study subjects, Dr. Ma noted.

“It is really notable that none of the replacements of factor have been free of thrombotic side effects,” Dr. Ma said. “And so I think it shows that you mess with Mother Nature at your peril. If you poke at the hemostasis-thrombosis arm and reduce antithrombotic proteins, and something triggers bleeding and you start to treat with a therapy for hemorrhage, it’s not a surprise that the first patient treated with fitusiran had a thrombosis, and I think we were just not potentially savvy enough to predict that.”
 

Considerable optimism over gene therapy

“There is now repeated proof of concept success for hemophilia A and B gene therapy. I think this supports the considerable optimism that’s really driving this field,” said Lindsey A. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

She reviewed adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector and AAV-mediated gene transfer approaches for hemophilia A and B.

There are currently four clinical trials of gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B, and five for patients with hemophilia A.

Because AAV efficiently targets the liver, most safety considerations about systemic AAV-mediated gene therapy are focused around potential hepatotoxicity, Dr. George said.

“Thankfully, short-term safety in the context of hemophilia has really been quite good,” she said.

Patients who undergo gene therapy for hemophilia are typically monitored twice weekly for 3 months for evidence of a capsid-specific CD8 T cell response, also called a capsid immune response. This presents with transient transaminase elevations (primarily ALT) and a decline in factor VIII and factor IX activity.

In clinical trials for patients with hemophilia, the capsid immune response has limited the efficacy of the therapy in the short term, but has not been a major cause for safety concerns. It is typically managed with glucocorticoids or other immunomodulating agents such as mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus.

There have also been reported cases of transaminase elevations without evidence of a capsid immune response, which warrants further investigation, she added.

Regarding efficacy, she noted that across clinical trials, the observed annualized bleeding rate has been less than 1%, despite heterogeneity of vectors and dosing used.

“That’s obviously quite optimistic for the field, but it also sort of raises the point that the heterogeneity at which we’re achieving the same phenotypic observations deserves a bit of a deeper dive,” she said.

Although hemophilia B gene transfer appears to be durable, the same cannot be said as yet for hemophilia A.

In canine models for hemophilia A and B, factor VIII and factor IX expression have been demonstrated for 8-10 years post vector, and in humans factor IX expression in patients with hemophilia B has been reported for up to 8 years.

In contrast, in the three hemophilia A trials in which patients have been followed for a minimum of 2 years, there was an approximately 40% loss of transgene vector from year 1 to year 2 with two vectors, but not a third.

Potential explanations for the loss of expression seen include an unfolded protein response, promoter silence, and an ongoing undetected or unmitigated immune response to AAV or to the transgene.

Regarding the future of gene therapy, Dr. George said that “we anticipate that there will be licensed vectors in the very near future, and predicted that gene therapy “will fulfill its promise to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care.”

Dr. Lim disclosed honoraria from several companies and travel support from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ma disclosed honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Dr. George disclosed FVIII-QQ patents and royalties, research funding from AskBio, and consulting activities/advisory board participation with others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s a problem many clinicians would love to have: A whole variety of new or emerging therapeutic options to use in the care of their patients.

In a session titled “Hemophilia Update: Our Cup Runneth Over,” presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, experts in the treatment of bleeding disorders discussed the optimal use of factor concentrates in people with hemophilia, new and investigational alternatives to factor concentrates, and the promise of long-time control or even cure with gene therapy.
 

Factor concentrates

Prophylaxis – as opposed to episodic treatment – is the standard of care in the use of factor concentrates in patients with hemophilia, said Ming Y. Lim, MB BChir, from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

“Effective prophylaxis is an ongoing collaborative effort that relies on shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician,” she told the audience.

As the complexity of therapeutic options, including gene therapy, continues to increase “it is critical that both patients and clinicians are actively involved in this collaborative process to optimize treatment and overall patient outcomes,” she added.

Historically, clinicians who treat patients with hemophilia aimed for trough levels of factor concentrates of at least 1% to prevent spontaneous joint bleeding. But as updated World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines now recommend, trough levels should be sufficient to prevent spontaneous bleeding based on the individual patient’s bleeding phenotype and activity levels, starting in the range between 3% and 5%, and going higher as necessary.

“The appropriate target trough level is that at which a person with hemophilia experiences zero bleeds while pursuing an active or sedentary lifestyle,” she said.

The choice of factor concentrates between standard and extended half-life products will depend on multiple factors, including availability, patient and provider preferences, cost, and access to assays for monitoring extended half-life products.

The prolonged action of extended half-life products translates into dosing twice per week or every 3 days for factor VIII concentrates, and every 7-14 days for factor IX concentrates.

“All available extended half-life products have been shown to be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of bleeds, with no evidence for any clinical safety issues,” Dr. Lim said.

There are theoretical concerns, however, regarding the lifelong use of PEGylated clotting factor concentrates, leading to some variations in the regulatory approval for some PEGylated product intended for bleeding prophylaxis in children with hemophilia, she noted.

The pharmacokinetics of prophylaxis with factor concentrates can vary according to age, body mass, blood type, and von Willebrand factor levels, so WFH guidelines recommend pharmacokinetic assessment of people with hemophilia for optimization of prophylaxis, she said.
 

Factor mimetic and rebalancing therapies

With the commercial availability of one factor mimetic for treatment of hemophilia A and with other factor mimetics and rebalancing therapies such as fitusiran in the works, it raises the question, “Is this the beginning of the end of the use of factor?” said Alice Ma, MD, FACP, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Factors that may determine the answer to that question include the convenience of subcutaneous administration of factor VIII mimetics compared with intravenous delivery of factor concentrates, relative cost of factors versus nonfactor products, and safety.

She reviewed the current state of alternatives to factor concentrates, including the factor mimetic emicizumab (Hemlibra), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors, and is currently the only FDA-approved and licensed agent in its class.

Although emicizumab is widely regarded as a major advance, there are still unanswered clinical questions about its long-term use, Dr. Ma said. It is unknown, for example, whether it can prevent inhibitor development in previously untreated patients, and whether it can prevent intracranial hemorrhage in early years of life prior to the start of traditional prophylaxis.

It’s also unknown whether the factor VIII mimetic activity of emicizumab provides the same physiological benefits of coagulation factors, and the mechanism of thrombotic adverse events seen with this agent is still unclear, she added.

Other factor VIII mimetics in the pipeline include Mim8, which is being developed in Denmark by Novo Nordisk; this is a next-generation bispecific antibody with enhanced activity over emicizumab in both mouse models and in vitro hemophilia A assays. There are also two others bispecific antibodies designed to generate thrombin in preclinical development: BS-027125 (Bioverativ, U.S.) and NIBX-2101 (Takeda, Japan).

One of the most promising rebalancing factors in development is fitusiran, a small interfering RNA molecule that targets mRNA encoding antithrombin. As reported during ASH 2021, fitusiran was associated with an approximately 90% reduction in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A and hemophilia B, both with inhibitors, in two clinical trials. It was described at the meeting “as a great leap forward” in the treatment of hemophilia.

However, during its clinical development fitusiran has been consistently associated with thrombotic complications, Dr. Ma noted.

Also in development are several drugs targeted against tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), an anticoagulant protein that inhibits early phases of the procoagulant response. These agents included marstacimab (Pfizer, U.S.) which has been reported to normalize coagulation in plasma from hemophilia patients ex vivo and is currently being evaluated in patients with hemophilia A and B. There is also MG1113 (Green Cross Corporation, South Korea), a monoclonal antibody currently being tested in healthy volunteers, and BAX499 (Takeda), an aptamer derived from recombinant human TFPI that has been shown to inhibit TFPI in vitro and in vivo. However, development of this agent is on hold due to bleeding in study subjects, Dr. Ma noted.

“It is really notable that none of the replacements of factor have been free of thrombotic side effects,” Dr. Ma said. “And so I think it shows that you mess with Mother Nature at your peril. If you poke at the hemostasis-thrombosis arm and reduce antithrombotic proteins, and something triggers bleeding and you start to treat with a therapy for hemorrhage, it’s not a surprise that the first patient treated with fitusiran had a thrombosis, and I think we were just not potentially savvy enough to predict that.”
 

Considerable optimism over gene therapy

“There is now repeated proof of concept success for hemophilia A and B gene therapy. I think this supports the considerable optimism that’s really driving this field,” said Lindsey A. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

She reviewed adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector and AAV-mediated gene transfer approaches for hemophilia A and B.

There are currently four clinical trials of gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B, and five for patients with hemophilia A.

Because AAV efficiently targets the liver, most safety considerations about systemic AAV-mediated gene therapy are focused around potential hepatotoxicity, Dr. George said.

“Thankfully, short-term safety in the context of hemophilia has really been quite good,” she said.

Patients who undergo gene therapy for hemophilia are typically monitored twice weekly for 3 months for evidence of a capsid-specific CD8 T cell response, also called a capsid immune response. This presents with transient transaminase elevations (primarily ALT) and a decline in factor VIII and factor IX activity.

In clinical trials for patients with hemophilia, the capsid immune response has limited the efficacy of the therapy in the short term, but has not been a major cause for safety concerns. It is typically managed with glucocorticoids or other immunomodulating agents such as mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus.

There have also been reported cases of transaminase elevations without evidence of a capsid immune response, which warrants further investigation, she added.

Regarding efficacy, she noted that across clinical trials, the observed annualized bleeding rate has been less than 1%, despite heterogeneity of vectors and dosing used.

“That’s obviously quite optimistic for the field, but it also sort of raises the point that the heterogeneity at which we’re achieving the same phenotypic observations deserves a bit of a deeper dive,” she said.

Although hemophilia B gene transfer appears to be durable, the same cannot be said as yet for hemophilia A.

In canine models for hemophilia A and B, factor VIII and factor IX expression have been demonstrated for 8-10 years post vector, and in humans factor IX expression in patients with hemophilia B has been reported for up to 8 years.

In contrast, in the three hemophilia A trials in which patients have been followed for a minimum of 2 years, there was an approximately 40% loss of transgene vector from year 1 to year 2 with two vectors, but not a third.

Potential explanations for the loss of expression seen include an unfolded protein response, promoter silence, and an ongoing undetected or unmitigated immune response to AAV or to the transgene.

Regarding the future of gene therapy, Dr. George said that “we anticipate that there will be licensed vectors in the very near future, and predicted that gene therapy “will fulfill its promise to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care.”

Dr. Lim disclosed honoraria from several companies and travel support from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ma disclosed honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Dr. George disclosed FVIII-QQ patents and royalties, research funding from AskBio, and consulting activities/advisory board participation with others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Remarkable results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology for the investigational drug fitusiran to prevent bleeding in hemophilia patients.

Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.

Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.

These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
 

A question about study design

An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.

Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.

Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.

Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
 

No pricing information

Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.

If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.

Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.

For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
 

Trial details

In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.

Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.

The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.

ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.

Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.

none provided

There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”

Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.

Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.

The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Remarkable results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology for the investigational drug fitusiran to prevent bleeding in hemophilia patients.

Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.

Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.

These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
 

A question about study design

An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.

Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.

Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.

Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
 

No pricing information

Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.

If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.

Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.

For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
 

Trial details

In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.

Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.

The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.

ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.

Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.

none provided

There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”

Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.

Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.

The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Remarkable results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology for the investigational drug fitusiran to prevent bleeding in hemophilia patients.

Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.

Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.

These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
 

A question about study design

An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.

Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.

Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.

Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
 

No pricing information

Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.

If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.

Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.

For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
 

Trial details

In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.

Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.

The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.

ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.

Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.

none provided

There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”

Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.

Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.

The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 12 approved ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft (Besremi), a monopegylated, long-acting interferon, for adults with polycythemia vera, according to an agency press release.

Besremi has a longer half-life than do other pegylated interferon-alfas, allowing for dosing every 2 weeks instead of weekly. If red blood cell counts remain normal for a year, patients have the option of switching to once-monthly dosing. As with similar products, Besremi is self-administered as a subcutaneous injection.

It’s the first interferon approved in the United States specifically for polycythemia vera. Besremi is also approved for upfront therapy, unlike FDA’s first approval for the condition, the oral JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which is indicated only after hydroxyurea failure.

Taiwan-based maker PharmaEssentia said in another press release that it will roll Besremi out to the U.S. market in the coming weeks.

“As we begin working closely with the community to integrate this important treatment into clinical practice, we also continue to expand our scientific efforts to unlock the full potential of our pioneering molecule,” said Ko-Chung Lin, PhD, the company’s CEO.

As for unlocking the full potential, Besremi is under investigation for other interferon indications, including myelofibrosis, leukemia, and chronic hepatitis.

The FDA’s approval was based on results in 51 adults treated for an average of 5 years; 31 (61%) had a complete hematologic response, defined as a hematocrit below 45% with no phlebotomy for at least 2 months, plus normal platelet and white cell counts, normal spleen size, and no blood clots.

“Noninferiority to hydroxyurea regarding haematological response and normal spleen size was not shown at 12 months. However, response to ropeginterferon alfa-2b continued to increase over time with improved responses compared with hydroxyurea at 36 months,” investigators noted in an earlier report (Lancet Haematol. 2020 Mar;7[3]:e196-e208).

Besremi carries the same boxed warning as those of peginterferon alfa-2b (Pegintron) and peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys), which notes the risk of life-threatening neuropsychiatric, autoimmune, ischemic, and infectious disorders. Related contraindications include severe depression and other psychiatric problems; liver impairment; serious or untreated autoimmune disease, and immunosuppression following organ transplant.

Influenza-like illness, arthralgia, fatigue, pruritis, nasopharyngitis, and musculoskeletal pain were the most common adverse events in studies, occurring in over 40% of subjects. Urinary tract infections, transient ischemic attacks, and depression were the most frequent serious complications, occurring in over 4%.

Labeling also notes the risk for fetal harm and the need for effective contraception.

Besremi was approved in Europe in 2019 and is approved in Taiwan and South Korea.

Polycythemia vera is a rare condition thought to be caused by acquired bone marrow stem cell mutations that trigger an overproduction of red blood cells. Patients are at increased risk of blood clots and emboli, and subsequent heart attacks, strokes, and other problems. There’s also the risk of transformation to secondary myelofibrosis or leukemia.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 12 approved ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft (Besremi), a monopegylated, long-acting interferon, for adults with polycythemia vera, according to an agency press release.

Besremi has a longer half-life than do other pegylated interferon-alfas, allowing for dosing every 2 weeks instead of weekly. If red blood cell counts remain normal for a year, patients have the option of switching to once-monthly dosing. As with similar products, Besremi is self-administered as a subcutaneous injection.

It’s the first interferon approved in the United States specifically for polycythemia vera. Besremi is also approved for upfront therapy, unlike FDA’s first approval for the condition, the oral JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which is indicated only after hydroxyurea failure.

Taiwan-based maker PharmaEssentia said in another press release that it will roll Besremi out to the U.S. market in the coming weeks.

“As we begin working closely with the community to integrate this important treatment into clinical practice, we also continue to expand our scientific efforts to unlock the full potential of our pioneering molecule,” said Ko-Chung Lin, PhD, the company’s CEO.

As for unlocking the full potential, Besremi is under investigation for other interferon indications, including myelofibrosis, leukemia, and chronic hepatitis.

The FDA’s approval was based on results in 51 adults treated for an average of 5 years; 31 (61%) had a complete hematologic response, defined as a hematocrit below 45% with no phlebotomy for at least 2 months, plus normal platelet and white cell counts, normal spleen size, and no blood clots.

“Noninferiority to hydroxyurea regarding haematological response and normal spleen size was not shown at 12 months. However, response to ropeginterferon alfa-2b continued to increase over time with improved responses compared with hydroxyurea at 36 months,” investigators noted in an earlier report (Lancet Haematol. 2020 Mar;7[3]:e196-e208).

Besremi carries the same boxed warning as those of peginterferon alfa-2b (Pegintron) and peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys), which notes the risk of life-threatening neuropsychiatric, autoimmune, ischemic, and infectious disorders. Related contraindications include severe depression and other psychiatric problems; liver impairment; serious or untreated autoimmune disease, and immunosuppression following organ transplant.

Influenza-like illness, arthralgia, fatigue, pruritis, nasopharyngitis, and musculoskeletal pain were the most common adverse events in studies, occurring in over 40% of subjects. Urinary tract infections, transient ischemic attacks, and depression were the most frequent serious complications, occurring in over 4%.

Labeling also notes the risk for fetal harm and the need for effective contraception.

Besremi was approved in Europe in 2019 and is approved in Taiwan and South Korea.

Polycythemia vera is a rare condition thought to be caused by acquired bone marrow stem cell mutations that trigger an overproduction of red blood cells. Patients are at increased risk of blood clots and emboli, and subsequent heart attacks, strokes, and other problems. There’s also the risk of transformation to secondary myelofibrosis or leukemia.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 12 approved ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft (Besremi), a monopegylated, long-acting interferon, for adults with polycythemia vera, according to an agency press release.

Besremi has a longer half-life than do other pegylated interferon-alfas, allowing for dosing every 2 weeks instead of weekly. If red blood cell counts remain normal for a year, patients have the option of switching to once-monthly dosing. As with similar products, Besremi is self-administered as a subcutaneous injection.

It’s the first interferon approved in the United States specifically for polycythemia vera. Besremi is also approved for upfront therapy, unlike FDA’s first approval for the condition, the oral JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which is indicated only after hydroxyurea failure.

Taiwan-based maker PharmaEssentia said in another press release that it will roll Besremi out to the U.S. market in the coming weeks.

“As we begin working closely with the community to integrate this important treatment into clinical practice, we also continue to expand our scientific efforts to unlock the full potential of our pioneering molecule,” said Ko-Chung Lin, PhD, the company’s CEO.

As for unlocking the full potential, Besremi is under investigation for other interferon indications, including myelofibrosis, leukemia, and chronic hepatitis.

The FDA’s approval was based on results in 51 adults treated for an average of 5 years; 31 (61%) had a complete hematologic response, defined as a hematocrit below 45% with no phlebotomy for at least 2 months, plus normal platelet and white cell counts, normal spleen size, and no blood clots.

“Noninferiority to hydroxyurea regarding haematological response and normal spleen size was not shown at 12 months. However, response to ropeginterferon alfa-2b continued to increase over time with improved responses compared with hydroxyurea at 36 months,” investigators noted in an earlier report (Lancet Haematol. 2020 Mar;7[3]:e196-e208).

Besremi carries the same boxed warning as those of peginterferon alfa-2b (Pegintron) and peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys), which notes the risk of life-threatening neuropsychiatric, autoimmune, ischemic, and infectious disorders. Related contraindications include severe depression and other psychiatric problems; liver impairment; serious or untreated autoimmune disease, and immunosuppression following organ transplant.

Influenza-like illness, arthralgia, fatigue, pruritis, nasopharyngitis, and musculoskeletal pain were the most common adverse events in studies, occurring in over 40% of subjects. Urinary tract infections, transient ischemic attacks, and depression were the most frequent serious complications, occurring in over 4%.

Labeling also notes the risk for fetal harm and the need for effective contraception.

Besremi was approved in Europe in 2019 and is approved in Taiwan and South Korea.

Polycythemia vera is a rare condition thought to be caused by acquired bone marrow stem cell mutations that trigger an overproduction of red blood cells. Patients are at increased risk of blood clots and emboli, and subsequent heart attacks, strokes, and other problems. There’s also the risk of transformation to secondary myelofibrosis or leukemia.

aotto@mdedge.com

The first report from a Spanish registry of patients with acquired hemophilia A shows a strikingly high rate of infection-related deaths among older patients in the 2 months after they start immunosuppressive therapy.

The findings also indicate that an unusually large proportion of patients were on antithrombotic therapy, which may have led to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A (AHA) in some cases, Marıa-Eva Mingot-Castellano, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocıo, Seville, Spain, and Hospital Regional Universitario de Malaga (Spain) and colleagues reported on behalf of the Acquired Haemophilia-A Spanish Registry (AHASR).

The report was published online in Blood Advances.

These data provide useful clinical information about a rare disease, and they underscore the need for vigilance when prescribing immunosuppressive therapy for frail, elderly patients with AHA, hematologist Nigel Key, MD, said in an interview.

“The findings point to the fact that we still have a high death rate with this disorder, whether directly or indirectly related,” said Dr. Key, the Harold R. Roberts Distinguished Professor and vice chief for research in the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “[AHA] is still a high-morbidity, high-mortality condition, and these are very high-risk patients.”



The Spanish AHA registry data

The authors retrospectively collected data on 154 patients who were diagnosed with AHA at 36 Spanish hospitals from May 2014 through September 2020 and followed for a median of 12 months.

The patients were mostly men (56.3%) and had a median age of 74 years at diagnosis.

A third were on antithrombotic therapy at diagnosis, and hemostatic treatment was used in 70% of cases.

“Only one patient did not achieve control of hemorrhage. Complete remission (CR) was achieved by 84.2% of cases after immunosuppressive therapy,” the authors wrote, noting that “steroids alone were less efficient than the other strategies (68.2% vs. 87.2%), whereas no differences existed among these (steroids/cyclophosphamide, 88.5%; vs. steroids/calcineurin inhibitors, 81.2%; vs. rituximab-based regimens, 87.5%).

Women and those with high inhibitor levels were less likely to achieve CR, they said.

Of the 154 registry participants, 36 died, and 15 (9.9%) of those died as a result of infection, the leading cause of death. Five (3.3%) died as a result of hemorrhage. All of the hemorrhage-related deaths and half of the infection-related deaths occurred within 2 months of diagnosis, they noted, adding that “prior antithrombotic therapy was inversely associated with survival, irrespective of age.”

The median age of nonsurvivors was significantly higher than that of survivors (79 vs. 73 years), and the median age of those who died from infection was significantly higher than that of patients who died from other causes (85 vs. 78 years).



Additional insights

“One remarkable finding, not described before in AHA, was the high proportion of patients on antithrombotic therapy in the days before AHA diagnosis, namely one-third of the whole series,” the authors wrote. “This proportion is comparable to that of the Spanish population of similar age groups.”

Further, the use of antithrombotic therapy prior to AHA diagnosis was associated with mortality during follow-up in patients aged 75 years and older, they noted.

The older age and comorbidity burden among affected patients underscores their vulnerability and the importance of prompt diagnosis, they added, explaining how misdiagnosis might occur: “Attributing the bleeding episode to a hemostatic imbalance caused by the antithrombotic therapy may entail a risk of misdiagnosis. Frail patients could be admitted to hospital shortly after having been administered anticoagulants. In these cases, misdiagnosis would prevent early [immunosuppressive therapy], and patients could be exposed to potentially life-threatening bleedings.”

Delayed diagnoses have also been described in other registries. For example, in the China Acquired Hemophilia Registry (CARE), nearly half of participants had a delayed diagnosis, and younger patients were more likely than older patients to be referred for consultation, the authors explained.

“Interestingly, antiplatelet therapy has been described to delay AHA diagnosis or lead to misdiagnosis of AHA patients. Furthermore, the underlying diseases that prompted antithrombotic therapy highlight the vulnerability of these patients and could contribute to a negative outcome,” they noted.

Given the high rate of fatal infection in the first months of immunosuppressive therapy in the series, and the association between antithrombotic therapy and mortality, particular care should be taken to avoid misdiagnosis, the authors stressed.

They noted, however, that the study has some important limitations inherent in retrospective analyses and studies with limited sample size and missing data.

Still, the findings add value, they said.

“AHA is not well-known among clinicians unfamiliar with hemostatic disorders. Lack of awareness may preclude early diagnosis, thus exposing patients to an unacceptably high bleeding risk,” they explained, adding that existing management guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive therapy “rely on registry findings and authors’ experience rather than on comparative studies.”

“Therefore, any valuable knowledge regarding clinical experience in managing this disorder should be helpful,” they wrote. “The rarity of the condition prompts the design of registries to compile as much information as possible concerning baseline status, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up ... to continuously update guidelines on disease management procedures.”

Indeed, the AHASR is “a good-sized registry” and these data are valuable, Dr. Key said.

“I like the fact that they focused on a couple of things here to do with outcomes, particularly analyzing the causes of death,” he said, noting that the reported death is not remarkably different from what has been reported previously, but it does “raise the question of morbidity also related to the therapy – particularly infection.”

The data are especially useful with respect to use of immunosuppressive regimens, he said.

“These are, for the most part, old or frail patients. ... They can’t just be put on cyclophosphamide and sent away without monitoring blood counts and being given advice about what to look out for regarding infection and when to seek treatment,” he said, adding that immunosuppressive regimens are “given for very good and necessary reasons, but are not benign.”

“There ought to be consideration, if necessary, of advice from an infectious disease specialist,” he added, noting that “rheumatologists deal with this all the time, but hematologists often underestimate the infectious morbidity of [immunosuppressive therapy].”

The study authors reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Key has served at the chair of a grant committee for Novo Nordisk.

sworcester@mdedge.com

The first report from a Spanish registry of patients with acquired hemophilia A shows a strikingly high rate of infection-related deaths among older patients in the 2 months after they start immunosuppressive therapy.

The findings also indicate that an unusually large proportion of patients were on antithrombotic therapy, which may have led to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A (AHA) in some cases, Marıa-Eva Mingot-Castellano, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocıo, Seville, Spain, and Hospital Regional Universitario de Malaga (Spain) and colleagues reported on behalf of the Acquired Haemophilia-A Spanish Registry (AHASR).

The report was published online in Blood Advances.

These data provide useful clinical information about a rare disease, and they underscore the need for vigilance when prescribing immunosuppressive therapy for frail, elderly patients with AHA, hematologist Nigel Key, MD, said in an interview.

“The findings point to the fact that we still have a high death rate with this disorder, whether directly or indirectly related,” said Dr. Key, the Harold R. Roberts Distinguished Professor and vice chief for research in the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “[AHA] is still a high-morbidity, high-mortality condition, and these are very high-risk patients.”



The Spanish AHA registry data

The authors retrospectively collected data on 154 patients who were diagnosed with AHA at 36 Spanish hospitals from May 2014 through September 2020 and followed for a median of 12 months.

The patients were mostly men (56.3%) and had a median age of 74 years at diagnosis.

A third were on antithrombotic therapy at diagnosis, and hemostatic treatment was used in 70% of cases.

“Only one patient did not achieve control of hemorrhage. Complete remission (CR) was achieved by 84.2% of cases after immunosuppressive therapy,” the authors wrote, noting that “steroids alone were less efficient than the other strategies (68.2% vs. 87.2%), whereas no differences existed among these (steroids/cyclophosphamide, 88.5%; vs. steroids/calcineurin inhibitors, 81.2%; vs. rituximab-based regimens, 87.5%).

Women and those with high inhibitor levels were less likely to achieve CR, they said.

Of the 154 registry participants, 36 died, and 15 (9.9%) of those died as a result of infection, the leading cause of death. Five (3.3%) died as a result of hemorrhage. All of the hemorrhage-related deaths and half of the infection-related deaths occurred within 2 months of diagnosis, they noted, adding that “prior antithrombotic therapy was inversely associated with survival, irrespective of age.”

The median age of nonsurvivors was significantly higher than that of survivors (79 vs. 73 years), and the median age of those who died from infection was significantly higher than that of patients who died from other causes (85 vs. 78 years).



Additional insights

“One remarkable finding, not described before in AHA, was the high proportion of patients on antithrombotic therapy in the days before AHA diagnosis, namely one-third of the whole series,” the authors wrote. “This proportion is comparable to that of the Spanish population of similar age groups.”

Further, the use of antithrombotic therapy prior to AHA diagnosis was associated with mortality during follow-up in patients aged 75 years and older, they noted.

The older age and comorbidity burden among affected patients underscores their vulnerability and the importance of prompt diagnosis, they added, explaining how misdiagnosis might occur: “Attributing the bleeding episode to a hemostatic imbalance caused by the antithrombotic therapy may entail a risk of misdiagnosis. Frail patients could be admitted to hospital shortly after having been administered anticoagulants. In these cases, misdiagnosis would prevent early [immunosuppressive therapy], and patients could be exposed to potentially life-threatening bleedings.”

Delayed diagnoses have also been described in other registries. For example, in the China Acquired Hemophilia Registry (CARE), nearly half of participants had a delayed diagnosis, and younger patients were more likely than older patients to be referred for consultation, the authors explained.

“Interestingly, antiplatelet therapy has been described to delay AHA diagnosis or lead to misdiagnosis of AHA patients. Furthermore, the underlying diseases that prompted antithrombotic therapy highlight the vulnerability of these patients and could contribute to a negative outcome,” they noted.

Given the high rate of fatal infection in the first months of immunosuppressive therapy in the series, and the association between antithrombotic therapy and mortality, particular care should be taken to avoid misdiagnosis, the authors stressed.

They noted, however, that the study has some important limitations inherent in retrospective analyses and studies with limited sample size and missing data.

Still, the findings add value, they said.

“AHA is not well-known among clinicians unfamiliar with hemostatic disorders. Lack of awareness may preclude early diagnosis, thus exposing patients to an unacceptably high bleeding risk,” they explained, adding that existing management guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive therapy “rely on registry findings and authors’ experience rather than on comparative studies.”

“Therefore, any valuable knowledge regarding clinical experience in managing this disorder should be helpful,” they wrote. “The rarity of the condition prompts the design of registries to compile as much information as possible concerning baseline status, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up ... to continuously update guidelines on disease management procedures.”

Indeed, the AHASR is “a good-sized registry” and these data are valuable, Dr. Key said.

“I like the fact that they focused on a couple of things here to do with outcomes, particularly analyzing the causes of death,” he said, noting that the reported death is not remarkably different from what has been reported previously, but it does “raise the question of morbidity also related to the therapy – particularly infection.”

The data are especially useful with respect to use of immunosuppressive regimens, he said.

“These are, for the most part, old or frail patients. ... They can’t just be put on cyclophosphamide and sent away without monitoring blood counts and being given advice about what to look out for regarding infection and when to seek treatment,” he said, adding that immunosuppressive regimens are “given for very good and necessary reasons, but are not benign.”

“There ought to be consideration, if necessary, of advice from an infectious disease specialist,” he added, noting that “rheumatologists deal with this all the time, but hematologists often underestimate the infectious morbidity of [immunosuppressive therapy].”

The study authors reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Key has served at the chair of a grant committee for Novo Nordisk.

sworcester@mdedge.com

The first report from a Spanish registry of patients with acquired hemophilia A shows a strikingly high rate of infection-related deaths among older patients in the 2 months after they start immunosuppressive therapy.

The findings also indicate that an unusually large proportion of patients were on antithrombotic therapy, which may have led to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A (AHA) in some cases, Marıa-Eva Mingot-Castellano, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocıo, Seville, Spain, and Hospital Regional Universitario de Malaga (Spain) and colleagues reported on behalf of the Acquired Haemophilia-A Spanish Registry (AHASR).

The report was published online in Blood Advances.

These data provide useful clinical information about a rare disease, and they underscore the need for vigilance when prescribing immunosuppressive therapy for frail, elderly patients with AHA, hematologist Nigel Key, MD, said in an interview.

“The findings point to the fact that we still have a high death rate with this disorder, whether directly or indirectly related,” said Dr. Key, the Harold R. Roberts Distinguished Professor and vice chief for research in the division of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “[AHA] is still a high-morbidity, high-mortality condition, and these are very high-risk patients.”



The Spanish AHA registry data

The authors retrospectively collected data on 154 patients who were diagnosed with AHA at 36 Spanish hospitals from May 2014 through September 2020 and followed for a median of 12 months.

The patients were mostly men (56.3%) and had a median age of 74 years at diagnosis.

A third were on antithrombotic therapy at diagnosis, and hemostatic treatment was used in 70% of cases.

“Only one patient did not achieve control of hemorrhage. Complete remission (CR) was achieved by 84.2% of cases after immunosuppressive therapy,” the authors wrote, noting that “steroids alone were less efficient than the other strategies (68.2% vs. 87.2%), whereas no differences existed among these (steroids/cyclophosphamide, 88.5%; vs. steroids/calcineurin inhibitors, 81.2%; vs. rituximab-based regimens, 87.5%).

Women and those with high inhibitor levels were less likely to achieve CR, they said.

Of the 154 registry participants, 36 died, and 15 (9.9%) of those died as a result of infection, the leading cause of death. Five (3.3%) died as a result of hemorrhage. All of the hemorrhage-related deaths and half of the infection-related deaths occurred within 2 months of diagnosis, they noted, adding that “prior antithrombotic therapy was inversely associated with survival, irrespective of age.”

The median age of nonsurvivors was significantly higher than that of survivors (79 vs. 73 years), and the median age of those who died from infection was significantly higher than that of patients who died from other causes (85 vs. 78 years).



Additional insights

“One remarkable finding, not described before in AHA, was the high proportion of patients on antithrombotic therapy in the days before AHA diagnosis, namely one-third of the whole series,” the authors wrote. “This proportion is comparable to that of the Spanish population of similar age groups.”

Further, the use of antithrombotic therapy prior to AHA diagnosis was associated with mortality during follow-up in patients aged 75 years and older, they noted.

The older age and comorbidity burden among affected patients underscores their vulnerability and the importance of prompt diagnosis, they added, explaining how misdiagnosis might occur: “Attributing the bleeding episode to a hemostatic imbalance caused by the antithrombotic therapy may entail a risk of misdiagnosis. Frail patients could be admitted to hospital shortly after having been administered anticoagulants. In these cases, misdiagnosis would prevent early [immunosuppressive therapy], and patients could be exposed to potentially life-threatening bleedings.”

Delayed diagnoses have also been described in other registries. For example, in the China Acquired Hemophilia Registry (CARE), nearly half of participants had a delayed diagnosis, and younger patients were more likely than older patients to be referred for consultation, the authors explained.

“Interestingly, antiplatelet therapy has been described to delay AHA diagnosis or lead to misdiagnosis of AHA patients. Furthermore, the underlying diseases that prompted antithrombotic therapy highlight the vulnerability of these patients and could contribute to a negative outcome,” they noted.

Given the high rate of fatal infection in the first months of immunosuppressive therapy in the series, and the association between antithrombotic therapy and mortality, particular care should be taken to avoid misdiagnosis, the authors stressed.

They noted, however, that the study has some important limitations inherent in retrospective analyses and studies with limited sample size and missing data.

Still, the findings add value, they said.

“AHA is not well-known among clinicians unfamiliar with hemostatic disorders. Lack of awareness may preclude early diagnosis, thus exposing patients to an unacceptably high bleeding risk,” they explained, adding that existing management guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive therapy “rely on registry findings and authors’ experience rather than on comparative studies.”

“Therefore, any valuable knowledge regarding clinical experience in managing this disorder should be helpful,” they wrote. “The rarity of the condition prompts the design of registries to compile as much information as possible concerning baseline status, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up ... to continuously update guidelines on disease management procedures.”

Indeed, the AHASR is “a good-sized registry” and these data are valuable, Dr. Key said.

“I like the fact that they focused on a couple of things here to do with outcomes, particularly analyzing the causes of death,” he said, noting that the reported death is not remarkably different from what has been reported previously, but it does “raise the question of morbidity also related to the therapy – particularly infection.”

The data are especially useful with respect to use of immunosuppressive regimens, he said.

“These are, for the most part, old or frail patients. ... They can’t just be put on cyclophosphamide and sent away without monitoring blood counts and being given advice about what to look out for regarding infection and when to seek treatment,” he said, adding that immunosuppressive regimens are “given for very good and necessary reasons, but are not benign.”

“There ought to be consideration, if necessary, of advice from an infectious disease specialist,” he added, noting that “rheumatologists deal with this all the time, but hematologists often underestimate the infectious morbidity of [immunosuppressive therapy].”

The study authors reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Key has served at the chair of a grant committee for Novo Nordisk.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

Research has shown that hepatitis C virus infections in patients with hemophilia lead to the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at a relatively younger age than that in patients without hemophilia. However, hemophilia was not a significant risk factor for hepatocarcinogenesis after sustained virologic response (SVR) against HCV, according to Yosuke Inukai of Nagoya (Japan) University and colleagues.

The researchers assessed 699 patients who achieved SVR after HCV antiviral treatment: 78 patients with hemophilia (H group) and 621 patients without hemophilia (NH group). They examined patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and the cumulative incidence of HCC after SVR, according to a report published online in Annals of Hepatology.
 

No added risk

Patients in the H-group were significantly younger and had a lower hepatic fibrosis score, compared with the NH group. Over a follow-up period of 7 years, there were no differences seen in the incidence of liver-related disease or overall death between the two groups. HCC was diagnosed in 4 patients in the H group and 36 patients in the NH group after SVR.

Multivariate analysis showed that male sex, patient age, and the presence of cirrhosis were significant risk factors for HCC incidence. However, after propensity-score matching that adjusted for the risk factors of HCC between the two groups, there was no significant difference seen in the cumulative incidence of HCC between the two groups.
 

Need for vigilance

The lack of a significant difference in the cumulative incidence of HCC after SVR or the long-term prognosis in patients with and without hemophilia, suggests that SVR could reduce the rates of liver carcinogenesis and liver disease–related mortality in both groups of patients, the researchers stated.

However: “Although there were no differences in overall survival, deaths from liver failure and bleeding events were observed in patients with hemophilia during the study period. Since the age in the H group at the time of starting antiviral treatment was 16 years younger than that in the NH group, careful observation is needed in patients with hemophilia even after eradication of HCV,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Research has shown that hepatitis C virus infections in patients with hemophilia lead to the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at a relatively younger age than that in patients without hemophilia. However, hemophilia was not a significant risk factor for hepatocarcinogenesis after sustained virologic response (SVR) against HCV, according to Yosuke Inukai of Nagoya (Japan) University and colleagues.

The researchers assessed 699 patients who achieved SVR after HCV antiviral treatment: 78 patients with hemophilia (H group) and 621 patients without hemophilia (NH group). They examined patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and the cumulative incidence of HCC after SVR, according to a report published online in Annals of Hepatology.
 

No added risk

Patients in the H-group were significantly younger and had a lower hepatic fibrosis score, compared with the NH group. Over a follow-up period of 7 years, there were no differences seen in the incidence of liver-related disease or overall death between the two groups. HCC was diagnosed in 4 patients in the H group and 36 patients in the NH group after SVR.

Multivariate analysis showed that male sex, patient age, and the presence of cirrhosis were significant risk factors for HCC incidence. However, after propensity-score matching that adjusted for the risk factors of HCC between the two groups, there was no significant difference seen in the cumulative incidence of HCC between the two groups.
 

Need for vigilance

The lack of a significant difference in the cumulative incidence of HCC after SVR or the long-term prognosis in patients with and without hemophilia, suggests that SVR could reduce the rates of liver carcinogenesis and liver disease–related mortality in both groups of patients, the researchers stated.

However: “Although there were no differences in overall survival, deaths from liver failure and bleeding events were observed in patients with hemophilia during the study period. Since the age in the H group at the time of starting antiviral treatment was 16 years younger than that in the NH group, careful observation is needed in patients with hemophilia even after eradication of HCV,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Research has shown that hepatitis C virus infections in patients with hemophilia lead to the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at a relatively younger age than that in patients without hemophilia. However, hemophilia was not a significant risk factor for hepatocarcinogenesis after sustained virologic response (SVR) against HCV, according to Yosuke Inukai of Nagoya (Japan) University and colleagues.

The researchers assessed 699 patients who achieved SVR after HCV antiviral treatment: 78 patients with hemophilia (H group) and 621 patients without hemophilia (NH group). They examined patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and the cumulative incidence of HCC after SVR, according to a report published online in Annals of Hepatology.
 

No added risk

Patients in the H-group were significantly younger and had a lower hepatic fibrosis score, compared with the NH group. Over a follow-up period of 7 years, there were no differences seen in the incidence of liver-related disease or overall death between the two groups. HCC was diagnosed in 4 patients in the H group and 36 patients in the NH group after SVR.

Multivariate analysis showed that male sex, patient age, and the presence of cirrhosis were significant risk factors for HCC incidence. However, after propensity-score matching that adjusted for the risk factors of HCC between the two groups, there was no significant difference seen in the cumulative incidence of HCC between the two groups.
 

Need for vigilance

The lack of a significant difference in the cumulative incidence of HCC after SVR or the long-term prognosis in patients with and without hemophilia, suggests that SVR could reduce the rates of liver carcinogenesis and liver disease–related mortality in both groups of patients, the researchers stated.

However: “Although there were no differences in overall survival, deaths from liver failure and bleeding events were observed in patients with hemophilia during the study period. Since the age in the H group at the time of starting antiviral treatment was 16 years younger than that in the NH group, careful observation is needed in patients with hemophilia even after eradication of HCV,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

The observed rates of intracranial hemorrhaging (ICH) in patients with hemophilia were higher compared to the general populations among all age groups examined, according to a meta-analysis of studies reported online ahead of print in Blood.

As previously reported, the risk seemed higher in the group of infants and toddlers, and neonates with hemophilia showed a 33-fold higher risk of ICH than newborns in the general population, in the current study.

The researchers performed a literature review and assessed 45 studies that represented 54,470 patients, 809,151 person-years and 5,326 live births of patients with hemophilia. Pooled ICH incidence and mortality were calculated for three age groups: persons of all ages with hemophilia; children and young adults below 25 years of age with hemophilia; and neonates with hemophilia.
 

Overall results

Among the persons of all ages, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.8) and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.2) per 1,000 person-years, respectively, according to the authors. They found that in children and young adults, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 7.4 (95% CI, 4.9-11.1) and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3-0.9) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. In neonates, the pooled cumulative ICH incidence was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5-2.8) per 100 live births and the pooled ICH cumulative mortality was 0.2% (95% CI, 0.0-1.2) per 100 live births.

Overall, the occurrence of ICH was classified as spontaneous in 35%-58% of cases.
 

Neonates at risk

The observed ICH rates in hemophilia were higher compared to the general populations among the age groups assessed. Neonates showed the highest risk of ICH, which is confirmed by other studies in severe hemophilia demonstrating that neonates were at 11.2 times higher risk for ICH compared with 1- to 12-month-old children, and is also strongly increased compared to neonates in the general populations, the researchers stated.

A previous large study of term infants reported 361 intracranial bleeding episodes per 583,340 live births (0.062% per 100 live births), and comparing this to the current pooled estimate of 2.1% per 100 live births, neonates with hemophilia showed a 33-fold higher risk of ICH than newborns in the general population, according to the researchers.
 

Monitoring and follow-up

“Our findings suggest that adequate follow-up and monitoring of patients is warranted among all ages, especially in the presence of risk factors. Prophylaxis seems to halve ICH risk in children and adults with severe hemophilia, which supports existing recommendations encouraging early initiation of prophylactic treatment,” the authors advised.

Accurate capture of the true frequency of ICH is challenged by considerable clinical heterogeneity, limiting the precision and generalizability of the pooled estimates, leading to the likelihood that ICH and mortality were underdiagnosed in this analysis, according to the authors.

“We found high ICH incidence and mortality rates in patients with hemophilia. Our findings suggest that ICH is still an important problem in hemophilia requiring adequate counseling of patients of all ages,” the researchers concluded.

This work was supported by a grant from Sobi. Some of the authors reported research, consulting or lecturing fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Sobi.

mlesney@mdedge.com

The observed rates of intracranial hemorrhaging (ICH) in patients with hemophilia were higher compared to the general populations among all age groups examined, according to a meta-analysis of studies reported online ahead of print in Blood.

As previously reported, the risk seemed higher in the group of infants and toddlers, and neonates with hemophilia showed a 33-fold higher risk of ICH than newborns in the general population, in the current study.

The researchers performed a literature review and assessed 45 studies that represented 54,470 patients, 809,151 person-years and 5,326 live births of patients with hemophilia. Pooled ICH incidence and mortality were calculated for three age groups: persons of all ages with hemophilia; children and young adults below 25 years of age with hemophilia; and neonates with hemophilia.
 

Overall results

Among the persons of all ages, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.8) and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.2) per 1,000 person-years, respectively, according to the authors. They found that in children and young adults, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 7.4 (95% CI, 4.9-11.1) and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3-0.9) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. In neonates, the pooled cumulative ICH incidence was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5-2.8) per 100 live births and the pooled ICH cumulative mortality was 0.2% (95% CI, 0.0-1.2) per 100 live births.

Overall, the occurrence of ICH was classified as spontaneous in 35%-58% of cases.
 

Neonates at risk

The observed ICH rates in hemophilia were higher compared to the general populations among the age groups assessed. Neonates showed the highest risk of ICH, which is confirmed by other studies in severe hemophilia demonstrating that neonates were at 11.2 times higher risk for ICH compared with 1- to 12-month-old children, and is also strongly increased compared to neonates in the general populations, the researchers stated.

A previous large study of term infants reported 361 intracranial bleeding episodes per 583,340 live births (0.062% per 100 live births), and comparing this to the current pooled estimate of 2.1% per 100 live births, neonates with hemophilia showed a 33-fold higher risk of ICH than newborns in the general population, according to the researchers.
 

Monitoring and follow-up

“Our findings suggest that adequate follow-up and monitoring of patients is warranted among all ages, especially in the presence of risk factors. Prophylaxis seems to halve ICH risk in children and adults with severe hemophilia, which supports existing recommendations encouraging early initiation of prophylactic treatment,” the authors advised.

Accurate capture of the true frequency of ICH is challenged by considerable clinical heterogeneity, limiting the precision and generalizability of the pooled estimates, leading to the likelihood that ICH and mortality were underdiagnosed in this analysis, according to the authors.

“We found high ICH incidence and mortality rates in patients with hemophilia. Our findings suggest that ICH is still an important problem in hemophilia requiring adequate counseling of patients of all ages,” the researchers concluded.

This work was supported by a grant from Sobi. Some of the authors reported research, consulting or lecturing fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Sobi.

mlesney@mdedge.com

The observed rates of intracranial hemorrhaging (ICH) in patients with hemophilia were higher compared to the general populations among all age groups examined, according to a meta-analysis of studies reported online ahead of print in Blood.

As previously reported, the risk seemed higher in the group of infants and toddlers, and neonates with hemophilia showed a 33-fold higher risk of ICH than newborns in the general population, in the current study.

The researchers performed a literature review and assessed 45 studies that represented 54,470 patients, 809,151 person-years and 5,326 live births of patients with hemophilia. Pooled ICH incidence and mortality were calculated for three age groups: persons of all ages with hemophilia; children and young adults below 25 years of age with hemophilia; and neonates with hemophilia.
 

Overall results

Among the persons of all ages, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.8) and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.2) per 1,000 person-years, respectively, according to the authors. They found that in children and young adults, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 7.4 (95% CI, 4.9-11.1) and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3-0.9) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. In neonates, the pooled cumulative ICH incidence was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5-2.8) per 100 live births and the pooled ICH cumulative mortality was 0.2% (95% CI, 0.0-1.2) per 100 live births.

Overall, the occurrence of ICH was classified as spontaneous in 35%-58% of cases.
 

Neonates at risk

The observed ICH rates in hemophilia were higher compared to the general populations among the age groups assessed. Neonates showed the highest risk of ICH, which is confirmed by other studies in severe hemophilia demonstrating that neonates were at 11.2 times higher risk for ICH compared with 1- to 12-month-old children, and is also strongly increased compared to neonates in the general populations, the researchers stated.

A previous large study of term infants reported 361 intracranial bleeding episodes per 583,340 live births (0.062% per 100 live births), and comparing this to the current pooled estimate of 2.1% per 100 live births, neonates with hemophilia showed a 33-fold higher risk of ICH than newborns in the general population, according to the researchers.
 

Monitoring and follow-up

“Our findings suggest that adequate follow-up and monitoring of patients is warranted among all ages, especially in the presence of risk factors. Prophylaxis seems to halve ICH risk in children and adults with severe hemophilia, which supports existing recommendations encouraging early initiation of prophylactic treatment,” the authors advised.

Accurate capture of the true frequency of ICH is challenged by considerable clinical heterogeneity, limiting the precision and generalizability of the pooled estimates, leading to the likelihood that ICH and mortality were underdiagnosed in this analysis, according to the authors.

“We found high ICH incidence and mortality rates in patients with hemophilia. Our findings suggest that ICH is still an important problem in hemophilia requiring adequate counseling of patients of all ages,” the researchers concluded.

This work was supported by a grant from Sobi. Some of the authors reported research, consulting or lecturing fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Sobi.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Clinical symptoms in a 19-year-old Vietnamese woman who experienced several life-threatening bleeding events, including ovarian hemorrhage, led to the discovery of a novel gene variant causing her bleeding disorder.

Blood analysis of the patients showed decreased fibrinogen level with “markedly elevated fibrinogen/fibrin degradation products and D-dimer levels.” Attempts to treat the patient with hemostatic surgery, administration of several medications, including nafamostat mesylate, tranexamic acid, and unfractionated heparin, produced no correction of her coagulation abnormalities, and the patient experienced repeated hemorrhagic events, according to researchers from the Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital, Japan, and colleagues.

However, the researchers found that treatment with recombinant human thrombomodulin (rhTM) remarkably improved the patient’s pathophysiology, according to the results of a case study reported in Blood Advances.
 

Genetic analysis

Upon screening and sequencing of the patient’s thrombomodulin gene, a previously unreported homozygous variation, c.793T>A (p.Cys265Ser) was discovered. Under normal circumstances, the Cys265 residue forms one of three disulfide bonds in the epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domain 1 of thrombomoduliin (TM), according to the researchers.

However, transient expression analysis of the patient’s mutation using COS-1 cells demonstrated markedly reduced expression of TM-Cys265Ser on the plasma membrane relative to wild-type TM. The TM-Cys265Ser mutant was intracellularly degraded, probably due to EGF-like domain 1 misfolding, according to the researchers and the reduced expression of TM on the endothelial cell membrane may be responsible for the disseminated intravascular coagulation-like symptoms observed in the patient, the speculated.

“The clinical symptoms of the patient in this study were characterized by recurrent hemorrhage, indicating that TM-C265S mainly causes hyperfibrinolysis rather than hypercoagulation. The C265S mutation may disrupt the timely and delicate balance between coagulation and fibrinolysis,” the researchers suggested.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Clinical symptoms in a 19-year-old Vietnamese woman who experienced several life-threatening bleeding events, including ovarian hemorrhage, led to the discovery of a novel gene variant causing her bleeding disorder.

Blood analysis of the patients showed decreased fibrinogen level with “markedly elevated fibrinogen/fibrin degradation products and D-dimer levels.” Attempts to treat the patient with hemostatic surgery, administration of several medications, including nafamostat mesylate, tranexamic acid, and unfractionated heparin, produced no correction of her coagulation abnormalities, and the patient experienced repeated hemorrhagic events, according to researchers from the Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital, Japan, and colleagues.

However, the researchers found that treatment with recombinant human thrombomodulin (rhTM) remarkably improved the patient’s pathophysiology, according to the results of a case study reported in Blood Advances.
 

Genetic analysis

Upon screening and sequencing of the patient’s thrombomodulin gene, a previously unreported homozygous variation, c.793T>A (p.Cys265Ser) was discovered. Under normal circumstances, the Cys265 residue forms one of three disulfide bonds in the epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domain 1 of thrombomoduliin (TM), according to the researchers.

However, transient expression analysis of the patient’s mutation using COS-1 cells demonstrated markedly reduced expression of TM-Cys265Ser on the plasma membrane relative to wild-type TM. The TM-Cys265Ser mutant was intracellularly degraded, probably due to EGF-like domain 1 misfolding, according to the researchers and the reduced expression of TM on the endothelial cell membrane may be responsible for the disseminated intravascular coagulation-like symptoms observed in the patient, the speculated.

“The clinical symptoms of the patient in this study were characterized by recurrent hemorrhage, indicating that TM-C265S mainly causes hyperfibrinolysis rather than hypercoagulation. The C265S mutation may disrupt the timely and delicate balance between coagulation and fibrinolysis,” the researchers suggested.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Clinical symptoms in a 19-year-old Vietnamese woman who experienced several life-threatening bleeding events, including ovarian hemorrhage, led to the discovery of a novel gene variant causing her bleeding disorder.

Blood analysis of the patients showed decreased fibrinogen level with “markedly elevated fibrinogen/fibrin degradation products and D-dimer levels.” Attempts to treat the patient with hemostatic surgery, administration of several medications, including nafamostat mesylate, tranexamic acid, and unfractionated heparin, produced no correction of her coagulation abnormalities, and the patient experienced repeated hemorrhagic events, according to researchers from the Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital, Japan, and colleagues.

However, the researchers found that treatment with recombinant human thrombomodulin (rhTM) remarkably improved the patient’s pathophysiology, according to the results of a case study reported in Blood Advances.
 

Genetic analysis

Upon screening and sequencing of the patient’s thrombomodulin gene, a previously unreported homozygous variation, c.793T>A (p.Cys265Ser) was discovered. Under normal circumstances, the Cys265 residue forms one of three disulfide bonds in the epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domain 1 of thrombomoduliin (TM), according to the researchers.

However, transient expression analysis of the patient’s mutation using COS-1 cells demonstrated markedly reduced expression of TM-Cys265Ser on the plasma membrane relative to wild-type TM. The TM-Cys265Ser mutant was intracellularly degraded, probably due to EGF-like domain 1 misfolding, according to the researchers and the reduced expression of TM on the endothelial cell membrane may be responsible for the disseminated intravascular coagulation-like symptoms observed in the patient, the speculated.

“The clinical symptoms of the patient in this study were characterized by recurrent hemorrhage, indicating that TM-C265S mainly causes hyperfibrinolysis rather than hypercoagulation. The C265S mutation may disrupt the timely and delicate balance between coagulation and fibrinolysis,” the researchers suggested.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com