Non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B.

BACKGROUND: Management of congenital hemophilia A and B is by prophylactic or on-demand replacement therapy with clotting factor concentrates. The effects of newer non-clotting factor therapies such as emicizumab, concizumab, marstacimab, and fitusiran compared with existing standards of care are yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (clinical, economic, patient-reported, and adverse outcomes) of non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeding and bleeding-related complications in people with congenital hemophilia A or B compared with prophylaxis with clotting factor therapies, bypassing agents, placebo, or no prophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, electronic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. The date of the last search was 16 August 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating people with congenital hemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors, who were treated with non-clotting factor therapies to prevent bleeds. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data for the primary outcomes (bleeding rates, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events) and secondary outcomes (joint health, pain scores, and economic outcomes). We assessed the mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) of effect estimates, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs (including 397 males aged 12 to 75 years) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy in people with inhibitors Four trials (189 participants) compared emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab with on-demand therapy in people with inhibitors. Prophylaxis using emicizumab likely reduced annualized bleeding rates (ABR) for all bleeds (MD -22.80, 95% CI -37.39 to -8.21), treated bleeds (MD -20.40, 95% CI -35.19 to -5.61), and annualized spontaneous bleeds (MD -15.50, 95% CI -24.06 to -6.94), but did not significantly reduce annualized joint and target joint bleeding rates (AjBR and AtjBR) (1 trial; 53 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fitusiran also likely reduced ABR for all bleeds (MD -28.80, 95% CI -40.07 to -17.53), treated bleeds (MD -16.80, 95% CI -25.80 to -7.80), joint bleeds (MD -12.50, 95% CI -19.91 to -5.09), and spontaneous bleeds (MD -14.80, 95% CI -24.90 to -4.71; 1 trial; 57 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No evidence was available on the effect of bleed prophylaxis using fitusiran versus on-demand therapy on AtjBR. Concizumab may reduce ABR for all bleeds (MD -12.31, 95% CI -19.17 to -5.45), treated bleeds (MD -10.10, 95% CI -17.74 to -2.46), joint bleeds (MD -9.55, 95% CI -13.55 to -5.55), and spontaneous bleeds (MD -11.96, 95% CI -19.89 to -4.03; 2 trials; 78 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but not target joint bleeds (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.26 to 1.26). Emicizumab prophylaxis resulted in an 11.31-fold increase, fitusiran in a 12.5-fold increase, and concizumab in a 1.59-fold increase in the proportion of participants with no bleeds. HRQoL measured using the Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL) physical and total health scores was improved with emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab prophylaxis (low-certainty evidence). Non-serious adverse events were higher with non-clotting factor therapies versus on-demand therapy, with injection site reactions being the most frequently reported adverse events. Transient antidrug antibodies were reported for fitusiran and concizumab. Prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy in people without inhibitors Two trials (208 participants) compared emicizumab and fitusiran with on-demand therapy in people without inhibitors. One trial assessed two doses of emicizumab (1.5 mg/kg weekly and 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly). Fitusiran 80 mg monthly, emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly all likely resulted in a large reduction in ABR for all bleeds, all treated bleeds, and joint bleeds. AtjBR was not reduced with either of the emicizumab dosing regimens. The effect of fitusiran prophylaxis on target joint bleeds was not assessed. Spontaneous bleeds were likely reduced with fitusiran (MD -20.21, 95% CI -32.12 to -8.30) and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly (MD -15.30, 95% CI -30.46 to -0.14), but not with emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (MD -14.60, 95% CI -29.78 to 0.58). The percentage of participants with zero bleeds was higher following emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (50% versus 0%), emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly (40% versus 0%), and fitusiran prophylaxis (40% versus 5%) compared with on-demand therapy. Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week did not improve Haem-A-QoL physical and total health scores, EQ-5D-5L VAS, or utility index scores (low-certainty evidence) when compared with on-demand therapy at 25 weeks. Emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly may improve HRQoL measured by the Haem-A-QoL physical health score (MD -15.97, 95% CI -29.14 to -2.80) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (MD 9.15, 95% CI 2.05 to 16.25; 1 trial; 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Fitusiran may result in improved HRQoL shown as a reduction in Haem-A-QoL total score (MD -7.06, 95% CI -11.50 to -2.62) and physical health score (MD -19.75, 95% CI -25.76 to -11.94; 1 trial; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). The risk of serious adverse events in participants without inhibitors also likely did not differ following prophylaxis with either emicizumab or fitusiran versus on-demand therapy (moderate-certainty evidence). Transient antidrug antibodies were reported in 4% (3/80) participants to fitusiran, with no observed effect on antithrombin lowering. A comparison of the different dosing regimens of emicizumab identified no differences in bleeding, safety, or patient-reported outcomes. No case of treatment-related cancer or mortality was reported in any study group. None of the included studies assessed our secondary outcomes of joint health, clinical joint function, and economic outcomes. None of the included studies evaluated marstacimab. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs shows that prophylaxis using non-clotting factor therapies compared with on-demand treatment may reduce bleeding events, increase the percentage of individuals with zero bleeds, increase the incidence of non-serious adverse events, and improve HRQoL. Comparative assessments with other prophylaxis regimens, assessment of long-term joint outcomes, and assessment of economic outcomes will improve evidence-based decision-making for the use of these therapies in bleed prevention.

Inhibitors in hemophilia: association with surgery plans and outcomes in a retrospective cohort study.

Background: The development of antibodies (inhibitors) to clotting factors compromises the management of hemophilia A and B, resulting in resistance to clotting factor replacement and, in many cases, the need for bypassing agents to achieve hemostasis. Objectives: To evaluate the association between the presence of inhibitors and achievement of perioperative hemostasis, development of complications, and presurgical plan deviations. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using data from the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center surgical database (1998-2019). Associations between perioperative outcomes and inhibitor status were assessed while controlling for patient and procedural characteristics. Results: A total of 1492 surgeries were performed in 539 persons with hemophilia, with 72 procedures performed in 20 patients with inhibitors (15 with hemophilia A; 5 with hemophilia B). High-responding inhibitors (>5 BU/mL) were present in 27 procedures, low-responding inhibitors (≤5 BU/mL) were present in in 13 procedures, and 32 procedures were performed in patients with historically persistent inhibitors. Adjusting for age, diagnosis, surgery setting, hemostatic agent, data collection period, and surgery type (major/minor), inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of inadequate perioperative hemostasis (33.4% vs 8.6%; adjusted relative risk [adjRR], 3.78; 95% CI, 1.89-7.56; P < .001). Reported complications include hemorrhage, fever, pain, thrombosis, and infections. Complications were not statistically different based on inhibitor status (31.7% vs 14.6%; adjRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.63-2.49; P = .526). Presurgical plan deviations (eg, hemostatic medication dose adjustments, procedure rescheduling, and changes in the length of postoperative hospitalization) occurred more frequently in surgeries involving inhibitors (70.8 vs 39.5%; adjRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.12-1.93; P = .005). Conclusion: Inhibitors are associated with higher risks of adverse perioperative outcomes. Strategies to address inhibitor development should be prioritized to avoid undesirable perioperative outcomes.

Cytisine for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cytisine is a smoking cessation medication. This systematic review incorporates recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide an updated evidence-based assessment of cytisine's efficacy and safety. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, for RCTs comparing cytisine to other smoking cessation treatments in adults who smoke. PRIMARY OUTCOME: 6-month biochemically verified continuous abstinence. Other outcomes: abstinence at longest follow-up, adverse events, mortality, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs involving 9953 adults. Cytisine was superior to placebo (risk ratio [RR] 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-4.47; 5 RCTs, 4325 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.95; 2 RCTs, 2131 participants) for the primary outcome. Cytisine was superior to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.64-4.70; 8 RCTs, 5762 participants) and nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12-1.73; 2 RCTs, 1511 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72-1.44; 4 RCTs, 2708 participants) for abstinence at longest follow-up. Cytisine increased mostly gastrointestinal adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.25; 8 RCTs, 5520 participants) and NRT (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.84; 1 RCT, 1310 participants) but less adverse events compared to varenicline (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.48-0.95; 3 RCTs, 2484 participants). CONCLUSION: Cytisine shows greater efficacy than placebo and NRT, but more adverse events. It is comparable to varenicline, with fewer adverse events. This can inform clinicians and guidelines on cytisine for smoking cessation.

Risk factors for bleeding in people living with hemophilia A and B treated with regular prophylaxis: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the risk for bleeding in patients with hemophilia (PWH) would be relevant for patients, stakeholders, and policy makers. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the literature on risk assessment models (RAMs) and risk factors for bleeding in PWH on regular prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception through August 2019. In duplicate, reviewers screened the articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk for bias using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. A qualitative synthesis of the results was not performed due to high heterogeneity in risk factors, outcomes definition and measurement, and statistical analysis of the results. RESULTS: From 1843 search results, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. No RAM for the risk for bleeding in PWH was found. Most studies included only PWH A or both PWH A and B and were conducted in North America or Europe. Only one study had a low risk for bias in all the domains. Eight categories of risk factors were identified. The risk for bleeding was increased when factor levels were lower and in people with a significant history of bleeding or who engaged in physical activities involving contact. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that plasma factor levels, history of bleeds, and physical activity should be considered for the derivation analysis when building a RAM for bleeding in PWH, and the role of other risk factors, including antithrombotic treatment and obesity, should be explored.

Utilization of a surgical database to provide care and assess perioperative treatment and outcomes in patients with bleeding disorders.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center (IHTC) surgical database, its key components, and exploratory analyses of surgeries conducted between 1998 and 2019. METHODS: Surgical data across bleeding disorders collected retrospectively (1998-2006) and prospectively (2006-2019) were analyzed. Perioperative hemostasis, complications, and surgical plan deviations were compared by bleeding disorder diagnosis and data collection period. RESULTS: Within the 21-year period, 3246 procedures were conducted in 1413 patients with a diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (vWD), hemophilia A (HA), hemophilia B (HB), and other bleeding disorders. Majority of the procedures were minor (63.3%), and median number of surgeries per patient was 1 (range: 1-22). Adequate perioperative hemostasis was achieved in 90.9%, complications occurred in 13.6%, and surgical plan deviations occurred in 31.3% of procedures. Inadequate perioperative hemostasis and surgical plan deviations occurred more frequently in procedures involving HB compared with other bleeding disorders. Complications were not significantly different across bleeding disorders (p = .164). The prospective data collection period was associated with higher rates of hemostatic efficacy (92.4% vs. 88.3%; p < .001), complications (14.3% vs. 12.3%; p < .001), and plan deviations (34.2% vs. 25.1%; p < .001). CONCLUSION: The surgical database is an important resource in surgical management in patients with bleeding disorders. Further evaluation will facilitate use for the development of predictive models and principles of care.

Clotting factor concentrates for preventing bleeding and bleeding-related complications in previously treated individuals with haemophilia A or B.

BACKGROUND: The hallmark of severe hemophilia (A or B) is recurrent bleeding into joints and soft tissues with progressive joint damage, despite on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis has long been used, but not universally adopted, because of medical, psychosocial, and cost controversies. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis in managing previously-treated individuals with hemophilia A or B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. In addition, we searched MEDLINE and Embase and online trial registries. Most recent search of Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 24 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating people with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, who were previously treated with clotting factor concentrates to manage their hemophilia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed trials for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The authors used the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials (including 608 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Eight of the trials (477 participants) had arms comparing two or more prophylactic regimens to one another and four of the trials (n = 258) compared prophylaxis to on-demand treatment (two trials had multiple arms and were included in both comparisons). Comparison of two or more prophylactic regimens For trials comparing one prophylaxis regimen to another, given the heterogeneity of the data, none of the data were pooled for this comparison. Considering the individual trials, three trials reported the primary outcome of joint bleeding, and none showed a dfference between dosing regimens (low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcome of total bleeding events, prophylaxis with a twice-weekly regimen of FIX likely results in reduced total bleeds compared to a once-a-week regimen of the same dose, mean difference (MD) 11.2 (5.81 to 16.59) (one trial, 10 participants, low-certainty evidence). Transient low-titer anti-FVIII inhibitors were reported in one of the trials. Blood-transmitted infections were not identified. Other adverse events reported include hypersensitivity, oedema, and weight gain. These were, however, rare and unrelated to study drugs (very low-certainty evidence). Comparison of prophylactic and on-demand regimens Four of the trials (258 participants) had arms that compared prophylaxis to on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis may result in a large decrease in the number of joint bleeds compared to on-demand treatment, MD -30.34 (95% CI -46.95 to -13.73) (two trials, 164 participants, low-certainty evidence). One of these trials (84 participants) also reported the long-term effects of prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy showing improved joint function, quality of life, and pain; but no differences between groups in joint structure when assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In one trial (84 participants) validated measures for joint health and pain assessment showed that prophylaxis likely improves joint health compared to an on-demand regimen with an estimated change difference of 0.94 points (95% CI 0.23 to 1.65) and improves total pain scores, MD -17.20 (95% CI -27.48 to -6.92 (moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials (131 participants) reported that prophylaxis likely results in a slight increase in adverse events, risk ratio 1.71 (1.24 to 2.37) (moderate-certainty evidence). No inhibitor development and blood-transmitted infections were identified. Overall, the certainty of the body of evidence was judged to be low because of different types of bias that could have altered the effect.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from RCTs that prophylaxis, as compared to on-demand treatment, may reduce bleeding frequency in previously-treated people with hemophilia. Prophylaxis may also improve joint function, pain and quality of life, even though this does not translate into a detectable improvement of articular damage when assessed by MRI.  When comparing two different prophylaxis regimens, no significant differences in terms of protection from bleeding were found. Dose optimization could, however, result in improved efficacy. Given the heterogeneity of the data, pooled estimates were not obtained for most comparisons.  Well-designed RCTs and prospective observational controlled studies with standardised definitions and measurements are needed to establish the optimal and most cost-effective treatment regimens.

Missed opportunities for pneumococcal vaccinations in high-risk and older adults in the United States.

Pneumococcal vaccination rates remain sub-optimal in high-risk adult populations. This analysis quantified "missed opportunities," defined as number of healthcare encounters in unvaccinated patients who are recommended to be vaccinated. The 2015 National Health Interview Survey was used to assess vaccination status from adults 18-64 with risk factor and adults ≥65 years-old. In older adults, there was a mean of 5.15 (95% CI: 4.90-5.39) healthcare visits that could be opportunities for pneumococcal vaccination. In adults 18-64 years at high risk, there was a mean of 4.83 (95% CI: 4.66-4.99). Healthcare providers should take advantage of patient interactions to increase vaccination rates.

Relative Clinical and Cost Burden of Community-Acquired Pneumonia Hospitalizations in Older Adults in the United States-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

The relative burden of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in older adults (≥65 years old) compared to other serious diseases is important to prioritize preventive treatment. A retrospective analysis was conducted using the 2014 National Readmission Database to evaluate the length of stay, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmissions, and costs of CAP compared to diabetes mellitus (DM), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. 275,790 hospitalizations were analyzed and represented a national estimate of 616,300 hospitalizations, including 269,961 for CAP, 71,284 for DM, 126,946 for MI, and 148,109 for stroke. The mean length of stay in CAP was 5.2 days, which was higher than DM (4.6) and MI (4.3) but similar to stroke (5.6). The inpatient mortality risk was lower for DM (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.29⁻0.46) but higher for MI (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.50⁻1.85) and stroke (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.51⁻1.83). The median costs for CAP ($7282) were higher compared to DM ($6217) but lower compared to MI ($14,802) and stroke ($8772). The 30-day readmission rate was 17% in CAP, which was higher compared to MI (15%) and stroke (11.5%) and lower compared to DM (20.3%). In patients with CAP, disease burden is on par with other serious diseases. CAP should be prioritized for prevention in older adults with strategies such as vaccination and smoking cessation.