Delivery of gene therapy in haemophilia treatment centres in the United States: Practical aspects of preparedness and implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia treatment centres (HTCs) and healthcare providers (HCPs) will need to adapt to a new treatment paradigm with the emergence of adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy for the treatment of haemophilia in adults. AIM: This review examines the upcoming patient and institutional journeys, along with practical aspects of preparedness for clinical delivery of gene therapy by HTCs. METHODS: Based on our clinical experience and examination of published literature, we explored the parallel journeys for patients and treatment centres to navigate before, during, and after administration of gene therapy. RESULTS: The patient journey includes: information gathering; decision making; comprehensive patient assessment; preparation for the infusion itself; short- and long-term monitoring; lifestyle modifications; and the possible need for immunosuppressive treatment. Informed decision-making may require patient education with extensive discussions and an understanding that not all people with haemophilia will choose or be eligible for gene therapy, although eligibility criteria continue to evolve. The institutional journey includes: consideration of biosafety procedures; planning for product procurement, handling, storage, and administration; development of detailed protocols and guidance documents; contingency planning for immunosuppressive and haemostatic management; consideration of clinical capabilities and staff training needs; coordination of efforts by the full multidisciplinary team; and collaboration between referring, dosing, and follow-up treatment centres. Documented protocols and guidance documents are pivotal for this complex therapy to ensure safe handling, optimal delivery, and post-infusion management and follow-up. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of this new treatment modality will require communication and collaboration among multiple stakeholders.

Recombinant von Willebrand factor and tranexamic acid for heavy menstrual bleeding in patients with mild and moderate von Willebrand disease in the USA (VWDMin): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding occurs in 80% of women with von Willebrand disease and is associated with iron deficiency and poor response to current therapies. International guidelines indicate low certainty regarding effectiveness of hormonal therapy and tranexamic acid. Although von Willebrand factor (VWF) concentrate is approved for bleeds, no prospective trials guide its use in heavy menstrual bleeding. We aimed to compare recombinant VWF with tranexamic acid for reducing heavy menstrual bleeding in patients with von Willebrand disease. METHODS: VWDMin, a phase 3, open-label, randomised crossover trial, was done in 13 haemophilia treatment centres in the USA. Female patients aged 13-45 years with mild or moderate von Willebrand disease, defined as VWF ristocetin cofactor less than 0·50 IU/mL, and heavy menstrual bleeding, defined as a pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC) score more than 100 in one of the past two cycles were eligible for enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to two consecutive cycles each of intravenous recombinant VWF, 40 IU/kg over 5-10 min on day 1, and oral tranexamic acid 1300 mg three times daily on days 1-5, the order determined by randomisation. The primary outcome was a 40-point reduction in PBAC score by day 5 after two cycles of treatment. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients with any post-baseline PBAC scores. The trial was stopped early due to slow recruitment on Feb 15, 2022, by a data safety monitoring board request, and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02606045. FINDINGS: Between Feb 12, 2019, and Nov 16, 2021, 39 patients were enrolled, 36 of whom completed the trial (17 received recombinant VWF then tranexamic acid and 19 received tranexamic acid then recombinant VWF). At the time of this unplanned interim analysis (data cutoff Jan 27, 2022), median follow-up was 23·97 weeks (IQR 21·81-28·14). The primary endpoint was not met, neither treatment corrected PBAC score to the normal range. Median PBAC score was significantly lower after two cycles with tranexamic acid than with recombinant VWF (146 [95% CI 117-199] vs 213 [152-298]; adjusted mean treatment difference 46 [95% CI 2-90]; p=0·039). There were no serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths and no grade 3-4 adverse events. The most common grade 1-2 adverse events were mucosal bleeding (four [6%] patients during tranexamic acid treatment vs zero during recombinant VWF treatment) and other bleeding (four [6%] vs two [3%]). INTERPRETATION: These interim data suggest that recombinant VWF is not superior to tranexamic acid in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding in patients with mild or moderate von Willebrand disease. These findings support discussion of treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding with patients based on their preferences and lived experience. FUNDING: National Heart Lung Blood Institute (National Institutes of Health).

Use of a modified GreenScreen tool to conduct a screening-level comparative hazard assessment of conventional silver and two forms of nanosilver.

BACKGROUND: Increased concern for potential health and environmental impacts of chemicals, including nanomaterials, in consumer products is driving demand for greater transparency regarding potential risks. Chemical hazard assessment is a powerful tool to inform product design, development and procurement and has been integrated into alternative assessment frameworks. The extent to which assessment methods originally designed for conventionally-sized materials can be used for nanomaterials, which have size-dependent physical and chemical properties, have not been well established. We contracted with a certified GreenScreen profiler to conduct three GreenScreen hazard assessments, for conventional silver and two forms of nanosilver. The contractor summarized publicly available literature, and used defined GreenScreen hazard criteria and expert judgment to assign and report hazard classification levels, along with indications of confidence in those assignments. Where data were not available, a data gap (DG) was assigned. Using the individual endpoint scores, an aggregated benchmark score (BM) was applied. RESULTS: Conventional silver and low-soluble nanosilver were assigned the highest possible hazard score and a silica-silver nanocomposite called AGS-20 could not be scored due to data gaps. AGS-20 is approved for use as antimicrobials by the US Environmental Protection Agency. CONCLUSIONS: An existing method for chemical hazard assessment and communication can be used - with minor adaptations- to compare hazards across conventional and nano forms of a substance. The differences in data gaps and in hazard profiles support the argument that each silver form should be considered unique and subjected to hazard assessment to inform regulatory decisions and decisions about product design and development. A critical limitation of hazard assessments for nanomaterials is the lack of nano-specific hazard data - where data are available, we demonstrate that existing hazard assessment systems can work. The work is relevant for risk assessors and regulators. We recommend that regulatory agencies and others require more robust data sets on each novel nanomaterial before granting market approval.

Use of Enterococcus faecalis and Bacillus atrophaeus as surrogates to establish and maintain laboratory proficiency for concentration of water samples using ultrafiltration.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA) currently uses ultrafiltration (UF) for concentration of biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) agents from large volumes (up to 100-L) of drinking water prior to analysis. Most UF procedures require comprehensive training and practice to achieve and maintain proficiency. As a result, there was a critical need to develop quality control (QC) criteria. Because select agents are difficult to work with and pose a significant safety hazard, QC criteria were developed using surrogates, including Enterococcus faecalis and Bacillus atrophaeus. This article presents the results from the QC criteria development study and results from a subsequent demonstration exercise in which E. faecalis was used to evaluate proficiency using UF to concentrate large volume drinking water samples. Based on preliminary testing EPA Method 1600 and Standard Methods 9218, for E. faecalis and B. atrophaeus respectively, were selected for use during the QC criteria development study. The QC criteria established for Method 1600 were used to assess laboratory performance during the demonstration exercise. Based on the results of the QC criteria study E. faecalis and B. atrophaeus can be used effectively to demonstrate and maintain proficiency using ultrafiltration.

Assessing exposures to household air pollution in public health research and program evaluation.

Exposure to smoke from the use of solid fuels and inefficient stoves for cooking and heating is responsible for approximately 4 million premature deaths yearly. As increasing investments are made to tackle this important public health issue, there is a need for identifying and providing guidance on best practices for exposure and stove performance monitoring, particularly for public health research and evaluation studies. This paper, which builds upon the discussion at an expert consultation on exposure assessment convened by the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PATH in late 2012, aims to provide general guidance on what to monitor, who and where to monitor, and how to monitor household air pollution exposures. In addition, we summarize information about commercially available monitoring equipment and the technical properties of these monitors most important for household air pollution exposure assessment. The target audience includes epidemiologists conducting health studies and program evaluators aiming to quantify changes in exposures to estimate the potential health benefits of cookstoves intervention projects.