A Mixed-method Approach to Develop an Ambulatory Module of the SMA Independence Scale.

BACKGROUND: Limited qualitative data exist on the symptoms and impacts of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) experienced by ambulant individuals. An ambulant module of the SMA Independence Scale (SMAIS) was developed to quantify the assistance required to perform everyday mobility-related activities. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a patient-centered module that provides key insights into what constitutes independence for ambulant and near-ambulant individuals with SMA. METHODS: A stepwise, mixed-method approach was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three waves with individuals with SMA and caregivers of children with SMA who were ambulant or near-ambulant (can walk ≥5 steps with support). Wave 1 interviews (n = 20) focused on concept elicitation. Wave 2 and 3 interviews (n = 15, both) involved completion and cognitive debriefing of items generated based on Wave 1 interviews. Therapeutic area experts were consulted throughout all key steps of the study. In particular, feedback was provided for item refinement and response option decisions. A macro-level preliminary, exploratory analysis, using Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT), provided insight on measurement properties. RESULTS: Wave 1 resulted in 42 mobility and 11 instrumental activity of daily living (iADL) items. During Wave 2, participants defined independence as completing a task with supportive aids but without help from another person, leading to item refinement and modifications to the response scale. Lack of conceptual relevance and ceiling effects led to the removal of all iADL items after Wave 2, and 41 mobility items were tested in Wave 3. Final exploratory RMT and item refinement to reduce overlap led to a 27-item set related to mobility tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides preliminary support for using the 27-item SMAIS-Ambulatory Module for ambulant or near-ambulant individuals with SMA. Larger-scale analyses to further assess the psychometric properties of the scale are warranted.

Emicizumab in people with moderate or mild haemophilia A (HAVEN 6): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial data are scarce for the use of prophylaxis in people with non-severe haemophilia A. The HAVEN 6 study aims to assess safety and efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis in people with non-severe haemophilia A without factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors. METHODS: HAVEN 6 is a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study taking place in 22 specialty clinics and hospitals in Europe, North America, and South Africa. Eligible participants were people of all ages weighing at least 3 kg with a diagnosis of moderate (FVIII activity ≥1%-≤5%) or mild (FVIII >5%-<40%) haemophilia A without FVIII inhibitors requiring prophylaxis as assessed by the treating physician. Participants received subcutaneous emicizumab 3 mg/kg of bodyweight once weekly for 4 weeks, followed by the participant's choice of maintenance dose: 1·5 mg/kg once weekly, 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks. Safety was the primary objective of the study. Safety endpoints included adverse events, serious adverse events, and adverse events of special interest including thromboembolic events and thrombotic microangiopathies. The primary efficacy endpoint was the annualised bleed rate for treated bleeds. Analyses were done for participants who received at least one dose of emicizumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04158648, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 10, 2020, and Aug 31, 2021, we assigned 73 people to treatment. 72 participants received at least one dose of emicizumab (51 moderate [71%]; 21 mild [29%]; 69 male [96%]; three female [4%]; and 61 White [85%]). Median age was 23·5 years (IQR 12·0-36·0); median follow-up was 55·6 weeks (IQR 52·3-61·6) weeks. At baseline, 24 participants (33%) had target joints and 37 (51%) were receiving FVIII prophylaxis. 60 participants (83%) had at least one adverse event; the most common adverse events were headache (in 12 participants [17%]), injection-site reaction (12 [17%]), and arthralgia (11 [15%]). 15 (21%) had at least one emicizumab-related adverse event; no adverse events led to treatment withdrawal, modification, or interruption. Eight participants (11%) reported ten serious adverse events in total, none emicizumab-related. There were no deaths or thrombotic microangiopathies. One participant had grade 1 thrombosed haemorrhoids (classified as a thromboembolic event), unrelated to emicizumab. The annualised bleed rate was 0·9 (95% CI 0·55-1·52) for treated bleeds. 48 participants (67%) had no treated bleeds. All-bleed annualised bleed rates were 10·1 (95% CI 6·93-14·76) from 24 weeks pre-study and 2·3 (1·67-3·12) on-study after a median follow-up of 55·6 weeks. INTERPRETATION: These data show efficacy and a favourable safety profile of emicizumab in people with non-severe haemophilia A without FVIII inhibitors who warrant prophylaxis, confirming emicizumab as a valuable treatment option in this population. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.