Patient satisfaction and experience with intravenously administered C1-inhibitor concentrates in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder with substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite expanded choices for effective acute treatment, prophylactic options are more limited. Intravenous C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH[IV]) is licensed and used to prevent HAE symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To better understand patient experiences with using C1-INH(IV), including level of satisfaction and types and frequency of complications. METHODS: Fifty adult members (≥18 years of age) of the US HAE Association who had HAE type I or II completed a self-administered internet survey. Eligible participants were experiencing at least 1 HAE attack per month and must have been receiving treatment with C1-INH(IV) as prophylaxis or acute therapy. RESULTS: Almost all respondents (n = 47; 94%) were using C1-INH(IV) for HAE prophylaxis. Most patients reported administration of C1-INH(IV) through a peripheral vein (n = 34) and 19 were currently (n = 17) or previously (n = 2) using a central venous port. Most respondents (62%) who used a peripheral vein to administer treatment reported having difficulty finding a usable vein or getting the infusion to work properly at least some of the time. Issues accessing veins, exhausted veins, and frequency of attacks were the main reasons physicians recommended ports to respondents. Although ports allow easier administration of therapy, 47% of respondents with ports experienced problems such as occlusion, thrombosis, and infection. Respondents using C1-INH prophylaxis reported a mean of 2.3 attacks per month during the previous 6 months. CONCLUSION: The survey results identified clinical challenges with IV HAE medication use, including venous access issues and ongoing monthly attack occurrence despite prophylactic C1-INH(IV) administration.

Escalating doses of C1 esterase inhibitor (CINRYZE) for prophylaxis in patients with hereditary angioedema.

BACKGROUND: Nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (human) is approved in the United States for routine prophylaxis of angioedema attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema, a rare disease caused by a deficiency of functional C1 inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of escalating doses of nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (human) in patients who were not adequately controlled on the indicated dose (1000 U every 3 or 4 days). METHODS: Eligible patients had >1 attack/month over the 3 months before the trial. Doses were escalated to 1500 U every 3 or 4 days for 12 weeks, at which point, the patients were evaluated. If treatment was successful (≤1 attack/mo) or at the investigator's discretion, the patients entered a 3-month follow-up period. The patients with an average of >1 attack/month were eligible for further escalation to 2000 U and then 2500 U. RESULTS: Twenty patients started at 1500 U; 13 were escalated to 2000 U, and 12 were escalated to 2500 U. Eighteen patients reported adverse events. Two patients reported 4 serious adverse events (cerebral cystic hygroma, laryngeal angioedema attack, anemia, and bile duct stone) that were considered by investigators to be unrelated to treatment. Notably, there were no systemic thrombotic events or discontinuations due to adverse events. Fourteen patients were treated successfully (70%), continued to the follow-up period at the investigator's discretion, or experienced a reduction in attacks of >1.0/month. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation of nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (human) up to 2500 U was well tolerated and reduced attack frequency in the majority of patients.

Current options for prophylactic treatment of hereditary angioedema in the United States: patient-based considerations.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) results from mutations in the C1-esterase inhibitor (C1 INH) gene that decrease production of C1 INH or render it dysfunctional. HAE is characterized by recurrent, unpredictable, bradykinin-mediated edema of the extremities, face, genitalia, trunk, gastrointestinal tract, or upper airway. Attacks causing laryngeal edema can be fatal. Patients with HAE need medications for acute attacks; some also require prophylaxis. Management requires consideration of the patient's disease burden and effect on the patient's quality of life. This review examines an individualized approach to identifying HAE patients who may benefit from prophylaxis. A literature search was performed for HAE and prophylaxis. HAE guidelines, case reports, safety studies, and randomized, controlled clinical prophylaxis trials were selected. Authors provided cases demonstrating individualized prophylaxis. U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved options for prophylaxis of HAE include attenuated androgens and nanofiltered C1 INH (C1 INH-nf). In other countries, pasteurized C1 INH and purified C1 INH are also available. Alternative therapies include fresh frozen plasma for preprocedural prophylaxis and antifibrinolytics for long-term prophylaxis. Attenuated androgens reduce attack frequency in many patients. Adverse effects include weight gain, virilization, increased hair growth, hypercholesterolemia, depression, and liver adenomas. C1 INH-nf reduces frequency of attacks and is well tolerated. Each patient with HAE has unique needs, based on the nature and frequency of past attacks, proximity to a medical center, occupation, and the patient's wishes. These factors should be used to create a patient-centered approach to management of HAE.

Alterations in serum neopterin correlate with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk scores in acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: Using serum neopterin as a marker of macrophage activation, we sought to examine the relationship between serum neopterin levels, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk scores, and how different treatments of acute coronary syndromes affect change in neopterin. METHODS: We examined serum neopterin concentrations at presentation and 72 h after treatment in 70 patients with acute coronary syndromes (35 with medical therapy, 25 with uncoated coronary stents, and 10 received rapamycin-eluting stents) using a commercially available immunoassay. Serum neopterin levels were determined for 36 patients with stable coronary artery disease. TIMI risk scores were calculated when appropriate (n=58). RESULTS: Serum neopterin had a strong correlation with the TIMI risk score on admission (P<0.0001). The mean baseline neopterin levels in patients with acute coronary syndromes stratified with TIMI scores between 1 and 7 were the following: patients with TIMI 1 scores had a level of 3.3+/-0.4 nmol/l, TIMI 2 patients 4.6+/-0.6 nmol/l, TIMI 3 patients 5.5+/-1.4 nmol/l, TIMI 4 patients 7.5+/-2.4 nmol/l, TIMI 5 patients 10.8+/-3.3 nmol/l, TIMI 6 patients 17.5+/-4.0 nmol/l, and TIMI 7 patients 23.0+/-7.1 nmol/l. Mean changes in serum neopterin were significantly higher for the uncoated stent group than for each of the other three groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Serum neopterin concentrations have a high correlation with TIMI risk scores and may represent a marker useful in stratifying patients with acute coronary syndromes. Our results also suggest that the use of uncoated coronary stents results in macrophage activation not found with other treatment modalities.