Italian experience with rVIII-single chain: a survey of patients with haemophilia A and their physicians

AbstractrVIII-SingleChain is indicated for treatment and prophylaxis of bleeding in patients with haemophilia A (HA). The safety and efficacy of rVIII-SingleChain have previously been shown in the AFFINITY clinical trial programme. This survey evaluated clinical experience following a switch to rVIII-SingleChain from the perspective of both physicians and patients. A web-based survey (July–September 2019) involving 14 Haemophilia Treatment Centres (HTCs) collected data about HA patients who were under treatment with rVIII-SingleChain for ≥ 12 months, as reported by their physicians. In addition, about half of these patients were separately interviewed. Out of 91 patients receiving rVIII-SingleChain in the 14 participating HTCs, 48 had been treated for ≥ 12 months; among those 48, 38% were ≤ 18 years, 37% 19–40 years and 25 % ≥ 41 years; 73% of them had severe HA and 85% were being treated with prophylactic therapy. Twenty-six patients accepted to be separately interviewed: mean age was 30 years; 62% had severe HA and 85% were receiving prophylaxis. Focusing on those patients who were already in prophylaxis with prior FVIII (all but one with recombinant factors), infusion frequency was significantly reduced from 3–2 per week following the switch to rVIII-SingleChain (mean, 2.74 vs. 2.44, respectively; p=0.013), as reported by physicians; the rate of patients needing 3 infusions per week dropped from 74% with previous products to 44% with rFVIII-SingleChain. The annual mean factor consumption was 4740 IU/Kg (median, 4500 IU/Kg; min, 2.215 IU/Kg; max, 7.200 IU/Kg) with prior product and 4320 IU/Kg (median, 4320 IU/Kg; min, 2.215 IU/Kg; max, 6.646 IU/Kg) with rVIII-SingleChain. Both physicians and patients reported a significant reduction in annual total bleeding rates with rVIII-SingleChain compared with prior product (mean 2.15–0.96 and 2.46–0.71 events/year, p = 0.031 and p = 0.018, respectively). Mean satisfaction ratings (from 1; dissatisfied, to 5; very satisfied) for rVIII-SingleChain were quite high for both physicians (4.14, 86% satisfied/very satisfied) and patients (4.18, 86% satisfied/very satisfied). This survey suggested that switching to rVIII-SingleChain allowed patients to reduce their injection frequency without increasing factor consumption or compromising clinical results. Both physicians and patients reported a positive experience with rVIII-SingleChain after 1 year of treatment.

sGC Stimulators and Activators

Nitric oxide (NO)-soluble guanylate cyclase(sGC)-cGMP signalling is impaired in HF syndromes, which could predispose to vascular oxidative stress. Nitrates directly stimulate cGMP, but are limited by tolerance. Therapeutic targets that aim at increasing cGMP concentrations have therefore been explored. Recently, two classes of drugs have been discovered, the sGC activators and the sGC stimulators, which target two different redox states of sGC: the NO-sensitive reduced (ferrous) sGC and NO-insensitive oxidized (ferric) sGC, respectively. Cinaciguat is an activator and riociguat and vericiguat are sGC stimulators. Vericiguat is the most advanced agent in its clinical trial programme with two completed phase IIb studies, SOCRATES -REDUCED in HFrEF and SOCRATES-PRESERVED in HFpEF, with mixed results on NT-proBNP. The ongoing VICTORIA trial in HFrEF will study 4,872 participants with a mortality/morbidity end-point and VITALITY HFpEF trial will study 735 participants, with a quality of life end-point.

Creating historical controls using data from a previous line of treatment – Two non-standard approaches

Where medical interventions are licensed based on only uncontrolled study data (for example a single-arm trial), a common approach for estimating the incremental benefit is to compare the treatment to a ‘historical control’; data collected from patients who did not receive the intervention. We illustrate with motivating examples two methods for the creation of historical controls where disease progression and overall survival are typically the key clinically meaningful endpoints. The first method utilises information routinely collected in a clinical trial programme: patients’ time to disease progression on their previous line of treatment against which outcomes can be compared. The second uses published clinical outcomes for the prior line of treatment which can be extrapolated to estimate outcomes at the next line. As examples we use two pharmaceuticals licensed on the basis of uncontrolled clinical studies – idelalisib for double-refractory follicular lymphoma and ofatumumab for double-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Although subject to limitations that should be considered on a case-by-case basis, the methods may be appropriate when trying to quantify the clinical benefit of treatment based on limited and uncontrolled trial data. As a result, the methods can be used to inform health technology adoption decisions.

Optimizing the Personalized, Risk-Adjusted Management of Pulmonary Embolism: An Integrated Clinical Trial Programme

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) contributes significantly to the global burden of cardiovascular disease. The severity of the acute PE event determines the expected estimated risk of early death. This risk is influenced by the degree of dysfunction of the right ventricle (RV), as assessed by the presence of acute RV pressure overload on imaging and/or elevated cardiac biomarkers, and by demographic and clinical factors, including relevant comorbidities. Haemodynamic instability and cardiogenic shock is at the top of the PE severity spectrum, as it represents the most extreme manifestation of RV failure and a key determinant of poor prognosis. Ideally, risk-adjusted treatment should implement: (1) optimized timing and regimens of reperfusion therapy for unstable patients; (2) early discharge and continuation of anticoagulation treatment at home (low-risk PE); or (3) hospital admission and clinical/haemodynamic monitoring in patients at intermediate risk. The challenge is now to provide the basis for a comprehensive personalized, risk-adjusted care for patients with acute PE. The aim of the integrated academic clinical trial programme of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz is to develop and prospectively validate, in multinational studies, strategies for reperfusion and anticoagulant treatment of acute PE across the entire spectrum of early risk as well as clinical pathways for post-PE patient care and follow-up.