Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: research priorities to transform the care of people with hemophilia.

BACKGROUND: Decades of research have transformed hemophilia from severely limiting children's lives to a manageable disorder compatible with a full, active life, for many in high-income countries. The direction of future research will determine whether exciting developments truly advance health equity for all people with hemophilia (PWH). National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) and American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network conducted extensive inclusive all-stakeholder consultations to identify the priorities of people with inherited bleeding disorders and those who care for them. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Working group (WG) 1 of the NHF State of the Science Research Summit distilled the community-identified priorities for hemophilia A and B into concrete research questions and scored their feasibility, impact, and risk. RESULTS: WG1 defined 63 top priority research questions concerning arthropathy/pain/bone health, inhibitors, diagnostics, gene therapy, the pediatric to adult transition of care, disparities faced by the community, and cardiovascular disease. This research has the potential to empower PWH to thrive despite lifelong comorbidities and achieve new standards of wellbeing, including psychosocial. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative research and care delivery will be key to capitalizing on current and horizon treatments and harnessing technical advances to improve diagnostics and testing, to advance health equity for all PWH.

Hemophilia is the best known of the inherited bleeding disorders (BD). This is a rare condition that causes disproportionate bleeding, often into joints and vital organs. Factor replacement, injecting recombinant or plasma-based clotting factor products directly into the vein, became commonplace to control the disorder in the 1990s and 2000s. Prophylaxis, or injecting replacement factor every few days into people with hemophilia (PWH), has revolutionized patients' lives. In the last few years, other advances in new therapies have entered this space, such as non-factor replacement therapies and gene therapy. With many more research advances on the horizon, the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) initiated a State of the Science Research Summit in 2020. This event was attended by over 880 interested parties to help design an agenda of research priorities for inherited BDs for the next decade, based on community consultations. NHF formed multiple Working Groups (WG), each exploring a theme resulting from the community consultations, and presenting their results at the Summit. Led by 2 hematologists who manage and treat PWH daily, the 21-community member WG1 assigned to hemophilia A and B divided into 7 subgroups to identify and organize research priorities for different topic areas. The outcomes focused on prioritizing patients' needs, technological advances, and research in the areas of greatest potential for PWH and those who care for them. The results are a roadmap for the future execution of a research plan that truly serves the community.

Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in the prevention of antibody-mediated rejection in living-donor kidney transplant recipients requiring desensitization therapy: A randomized trial.

We report results of a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, open-label, two-arm study evaluating the safety and efficacy of eculizumab in preventing acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in sensitized recipients of living-donor kidney transplants requiring pretransplant desensitization (NCT01399593). In total, 102 patients underwent desensitization. Posttransplant, 51 patients received standard of care (SOC) and 51 received eculizumab. The primary end point was week 9 posttransplant treatment failure rate, a composite of: biopsy-proven acute AMR (Banff 2007 grade II or III; assessed by blinded central pathology); graft loss; death; or loss to follow-up. Eculizumab was well tolerated with no new safety concerns. No significant difference in treatment failure rate was observed between eculizumab (9.8%) and SOC (13.7%; P = .760). To determine whether data assessment assumptions affected study outcome, biopsies were reanalyzed by central pathologists using clinical information. The resulting treatment failure rates were 11.8% and 21.6% for the eculizumab and SOC groups, respectively (nominal P = .288). When reassessment included grade I AMR, the treatment failure rates were 11.8% (eculizumab) and 29.4% (SOC; nominal P = .048). This finding suggests a potential benefit for eculizumab compared with SOC in preventing acute AMR in recipients sensitized to their living-donor kidney transplants (EudraCT 2010-019630-28).

Evaluation of multiday analgesia with etoricoxib in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial using the postoperative third-molar extraction dental pain model.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic effects of etoricoxib and comparator agents on the second and third days after oral surgery. METHODS: There were 588 patients initially randomized to placebo (n=46), etoricoxib 120 mg once daily (n=97), etoricoxib 90 mg once daily (n=191), ibuprofen 600 mg every 6 hours (n=192), and acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg (A/C) every 6 hours (n=62) after third-molar extraction (≥2, ≥1 impacted) in a double-blind controlled trial. Patients were allowed flexible dosing on days 2 and 3; 46, 96, 190, 192, and 56 patients on placebo, etoricoxib 120 mg, etoricoxib 90 mg, ibuprofen, and A/C, respectively, continued to Day 2 of the study. Outcomes included Average and Worst Recall Pain Assessments (0 to 10 scale) and Global Assessments of Study Medication (0 to 4 scale). Rescue medication (acetaminophen 325 mg up to 4 times daily) usage was evaluated. Adverse experiences were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: Average Pain Recall scores were lower than placebo for all active treatments on Day 2 but only for etoricoxib 120 and 90 mg on Day 3. Worst Pain Recall scores were lower than placebo for only etoricoxib 120 and 90 mg on Day 2; all treatment groups were similar on day 3. Rescue medicine was used on day 2 in 57% of placebo patients, whereas use in active treatments ranged from 18% to 23%; for Day 3, rescue was used in 22% of placebo patients, whereas use in active treatments ranged from 14% to 20%. Differences in mean Patient's Global Assessment of Study Medication scores were significant for etoricoxib versus placebo (P<0.001) and for etoricoxib versus A/C (P<0.010). Nausea and vomiting were among the most common adverse events with higher frequency in the A/C group. CONCLUSIONS: Pain control was most favorable for the etoricoxib doses and ibuprofen. Global Assessments of Study Medication continued to differentiate the treatments and demonstrated greater efficacy for etoricoxib on Days 2 and 3 compared with placebo and A/C (NCT00694369).

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin therapy: randomized, double-blind study protocol--EASE.

PURPOSE: Addition of aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), to an ondansetron and dexamethasone regimen improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase (DP; 25 to 120 hours). Therefore, recommended antiemetic regimens include multiple-day NK1RA administration. Preliminary data suggested that single-dose aprepitant before chemotherapy could provide CINV protection throughout the overall risk phase (OP; 0 to 120 hours). This study compared a 3-day oral aprepitant schedule to a regimen containing a single dose of the intravenous NK1RA fosaprepitant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, active-control design was used to test whether fosaprepitant is noninferior to aprepitant. Patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m(2) for the first time received ondansetron and dexamethasone with a standard aprepitant regimen (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 2, 80 mg on day 3) or a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen (150 mg on day 1). The primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting, no rescue medication) during OP. Secondary end points were CR during DP and no vomiting during OP. Accrual of 1,113 evaluable patients per treatment arm was planned to confirm noninferiority with expected CR of 67.7% and noninferiority margin of minus 7 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 2,322 patients were randomly assigned, and 2,247 were evaluable for efficacy. Antiemetic protection with aprepitant and fosaprepitant was equivalent within predefined bounds for noninferiority. Both regimens were well tolerated, although more frequent infusion site pain/erythema/thrombophlebitis was seen with fosaprepitant relative to aprepitant (2.7% v 0.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Given with ondansetron and dexamethasone, single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) was noninferior to standard 3-day oral aprepitant in preventing CINV during OP and DP.

Aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapies and tumor types: a randomized, double-blind study.

PURPOSE: Aprepitant was shown previously to be effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in breast cancer patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimen. This study assessed aprepitant in patients receiving a broad range of MEC regimens with a variety of tumor types. METHODS: This phase III, randomized, gender-stratified, double-blind trial enrolled patients with confirmed malignancies, naïve to MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, who were scheduled to receive a single dose of at least one MEC agent. Patients received an aprepitant triple-therapy regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone) or a control regimen (ondansetron and dexamethasone) administered orally. Primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients with no vomiting and complete response (no vomiting and no rescue medication), respectively, during the 120 h post-chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 848 randomized patients, 77% were female, and 52% received non-AC-based antineoplastic regimens. Significantly, more patients in the aprepitant group achieved no vomiting and complete response, regardless of whether they received AC or non-AC regimens, in the 120 h after chemotherapy. Overall, the incidences of adverse events were generally similar in the aprepitant (62.8%) and control groups (67.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The aprepitant regimen provided superior efficacy in the treatment of CINV in a broad range of patients receiving MEC (non-AC or AC) in both no vomiting and complete response endpoints. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. These results show the benefit of including aprepitant as part of the standard antiemetic regimen for cancer patients receiving MEC.

Evaluation of the effect of perioperative rofecoxib treatment on pain control and clinical outcomes in patients recovering from gynecologic abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 50 mg was evaluated in patients undergoing major abdominal gynecologic surgery. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 81) or placebo (n = 83) approximately 2 hours before total abdominal hysterectomy or myomectomy and once daily over the ensuing 4 days. Clinical measurements included average daily opioid use over the 5-day period (primary endpoint), pain intensity on movement, and opioid-related side effects. RESULTS: Patients receiving rofecoxib required 32% less (P = .001) intravenous and oral opioids to relieve their postoperative pain from days 1 to 5 (primary endpoint), used 21% less (P = .011) on day 1, and 42% less (P < .001) from days 2 to 5. The rofecoxib group experienced less pain upon movement (P < .001), less sedation (P = .007), and a 24% reduction in the rate of antiemetic intake (P = .037) over the first 72 hours postsurgery. Earlier mean times to first flatus (-10.1 hours, P = .001), first bowel movement (-14.1 hours, P = .037), and time to hospital discharge (-10.9 hours; 95% confidence interval, -17.1 to -4.7) occurred in the rofecoxib group. There were no significant intergroup differences in blood loss, wound healing, or overall adverse experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, perioperative administration of rofecoxib 50 mg provided significant opioid sparing, significantly better pain control, improved clinical outcomes, and was well tolerated.

Outcome measures for acute and chronic gout.

Gout provides some unique challenges in classification and measurement of outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate criteria for classification and to develop and validate optimal instruments to measure outcomes for acute and chronic gout. A planning committee and interested attendees met to propose classification criteria and domains for outcomes. Seven of the current American Rheumatism Association preliminary criteria for classification were proposed as the best current criteria for acute gouty arthritis, pending further studies. The presence of gout is best established by crystal identification, although this technique has limitations. Five domains for acute gout outcomes and 9 for chronic gout were identified along with proposed instruments for testing and validation. The unique problems of gout evaluation can and will be addressed.

Evaluation of the comparative efficacy of etoricoxib and ibuprofen for treatment of patients with osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To directly compare the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, and placebo for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with OA of the knee or hip was performed between February 2003 and November 2003 in 61 medical centers in the United States. Qualified patients aged 40 to 89 years were randomized to receive placebo, etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy end points Included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscales and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status. Response to treatment was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 528 patients, baseline values for the 3 primary end points ranged from 67.78 to 72.60 mm (0-100 mm visual analog scale). Near-maximal efficacy was achieved by week 2 with both active treatments and sustained over the course of the trial. During the 12-week period, least squares mean changes in the primary end points (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status subscales) ranged from -16.53 to -13.55 mm, -27.89 to -23.68 mm, and -26.53 to -22.97 mm in the placebo, etoricoxib, and Ibuprofen groups, respectively. Both etoricoxib and ibuprofen were more effective (P<.001) than placebo for all primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen treatment responses for the primary end points were determined to be comparable with use of prespecified comparability criteria. Results for all other efficacy end points were consistent with responses observed for the primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen generally were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: For patients with OA, treatment with etoricoxib, 30 mg/d, is well tolerated and provides sustained clinical effectiveness that is superior to placebo and comparable to ibuprofen, 2400 mg/d.

Randomised double blind trial of etoricoxib and indometacin in treatment of acute gouty arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor, in comparison with indometacin in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, active comparator controlled trial. SETTING: 43 outpatient study centres in 11 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 142 men and eight women (75 patients per treatment group) aged 18 years or over presenting with clinically diagnosed acute gout within 48 hours of onset. INTERVENTIONS: Etoricoxib 120 mg administered orally once daily versus indometacin 50 mg administered orally three times daily, both for 8 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' assessment of pain in the study joint over days 2 to 5 (primary end point); investigators' and patients' global assessments of response to treatment and tenderness of the study joint (key secondary end points). RESULTS: Etoricoxib showed efficacy comparable to indometacin. Patients' assessment of pain in the study joint (0-4 point Likert scale, "no pain" to "extreme pain") over days 2 to 5 showed a least squares mean change from baseline of -1.72 (95% confidence interval -1.90 to -1.55) for etoricoxib and -1.83 (-2.01 to -1.65) for indometacin. The difference between treatment groups met prespecified comparability criteria. All other efficacy end points, including those reflecting reduction in inflammation and analgesia, provided corroborative evidence of comparable efficacy. Significant pain relief was evident at the first measurement, 4 hours after the first dose of treatment. Prespecified safety analyses revealed that drug related adverse experiences occurred significantly less frequently with etoricoxib (22.7%) than with indometacin (46.7%) (P=0.003), although overall adverse experience rates were similar between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Etoricoxib 120 mg once daily provides rapid and effective treatment for acute gouty arthritis comparable to indometacin 50 mg three times daily. Etoricoxib was generally safe and well tolerated in this study.