Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage in Persons with Hemophilia A in the United States: Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study Using the ATHNdataset.

Introduction: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), a serious complication in persons with hemophilia A (PWHA), causes high rates of mortality and morbidity. Identified ICH risk factors from patient data spanning 1998-2008 require reassessment in light of changes in the current treatment landscape. Aim and methods: PWHA identified in the ATHNdataset were evaluated retrospectively to assess incidence of ICH and determine the association between ICH risk and key characteristics using time-to-event analyses (Cox proportional-hazards models, survival curves, and sensitivity analyses). Results: Over a median follow-up time of 10.7 patient-years, 135 of 7837 PWHA over 2 years of age in the ATHNdataset (1.7%) experienced an ICH. Stratification by prophylaxis status and inhibitor status resulted in an incidence rate (IR) ratio (IRR) (IR+/IR-) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.94; P=0.020) and 1.76 (95% CI, 0.97-3.20; P=0.059), respectively. Characteristics associated with greater risk of developing ICH include being aged 2-12 years; being covered by Medicaid; having had HIV, hepatitis C, or hypertension; and never having received factor VIII or prophylactic treatment. In multivariable analysis with interaction, the estimated hazard ratio for PWHA never receiving prophylaxis was 7.67 (95% CI, 2.24-26.30), which shrunk to 2.03 (95% CI, 1.30-9.12) in bootstrapping analysis and 3.09 in the highest-penalty ridge-regression analysis but was still significant. Inhibitor status was found not to be statistically associated with ICH in all analyses. Conclusion: These results align with previous studies demonstrating that prophylaxis confers a protective effect against ICH. Previously, inhibitor positivity had been shown to increase risk for ICH; however, this study did not corroborate those findings.

Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with in-stent restenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: Modified balloon angioplasty (MB) using a cutting-/scoring balloon or intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is used in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, IVL is an off-label use in this setting. The aim of this subgroup analysis of an all-comers registry was to compare IVL to MB angioplasty in patients with ISR. METHODS: The subgroup (n = 117) included all patients with an ISR treated by MB or IVL between 2019 and 2021. Primary endpoint was strategy success (< 20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR). Quantitative coronary angiography was performed in all patients. RESULTS: A total of n = 36 patients were treated by IVL and n = 81 patients by MB. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The primary endpoint was reached in 99 patients (84.6%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (2.8% vs. 21.0%; p = 0.012). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary end point (Estimate 2.857; standard error (SE) 1.166; p = 0.014). During the follow-up period (450 days) there were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 3 (2.6%); p = 0.643), AMI (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 4 (3.4%); p = 0.999) and TVR (IVL n = 5 (4.3%) vs. MB n = 14 (12%); p = 0.851). CONCLUSION: IVL results in a significantly lower rate of residual stenosis than MB in patients with ISR. During the long-term follow-up, no differences in rates of cardiac death, AMI or TVR were observed.

Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with calcified stenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty: a propensity score-adjusted study.

Background: The aim of this two-center, all-comers registry was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to that of modified balloon angioplasty (MB). MB angioplasty using a cutting or scoring balloon is commonly used in patients with calcified coronary arteries. IVL is a new technology for lesion preparation. This is the first study to compare MB with IVL. Methods: The cohort included all patients treated by MB angioplasty or IVL between 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was strategy success (<20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was long-term safety outcomes [cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR)]. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in all patients. Primary and secondary endpoints were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for treatment effect estimation. Results: A total of n = 86 patients were treated by IVL and n = 92 patients by MB angioplasty. The primary endpoint was reached in 152 patients (85.4%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (5.8% vs. 22.8%; p = 0.001) in QCA. Weighted multivariable regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary endpoint of strategy success [odds ratio (OR) 24.58; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.40-101.86; p = 0.001]. In addition, severe calcification was shown to result in a lower probability of achieving the primary endpoint (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p = 0.001). During the follow-up period (450 days) there was no difference in cardiovascular mortality rate [IVL (n = 5) 2.8% vs. MB (n = 3) 1.7%; p = 0.129]. Patients with unstable angina at the time of the index procedure had the highest probability of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) 7.136; 95% CI 1.248-40.802; p = 0.027]. No differences were found in long-term rates of AMI (IVL 1.7% vs. MB 2.8%; p = 0.399; IVL HR 2.73; 95% CI 0.4-17.0; p = 0.281) or TVR (IVL 5.6% vs. MB 9%; p = 0.186; IVL HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.277-2.166; p = 0.626). Conclusion: IVL leads to a significantly better angiographic intervention outcome compared to MB angioplasty in our cohort. During long-term follow-up, no differences in cardiovascular mortality, rate of acute myocardial infarction, or target lesion failure/revascularization were observed.

Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: facilitating research through infrastructure, workforce, resources and funding.

BACKGROUND: The National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) conducted extensive, inclusive community consultations to guide prioritization of research in coming decades in alignment with its mission to find cures and address and prevent complications enabling people and families with blood disorders to thrive. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: With the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network, NHF recruited multidisciplinary expert working groups (WG) to distill the community-identified priorities into concrete research questions and score their feasibility, impact, and risk. WG6 was charged with identifying the infrastructure, workforce development, and funding and resources to facilitate the prioritized research. Community input on conclusions was gathered at the NHF State of the Science Research Summit. RESULTS: WG6 detailed a minimal research capacity infrastructure threshold, and opportunities to enable its attainment, for bleeding disorders centers to participate in prospective, multicenter national registries. They identified challenges and opportunities to recruit, retain, and train the diverse multidisciplinary care and research workforce required into the future. Innovative collaborative approaches to trial design, resource networking, and funding to surmount obstacles facing research in rare disorders were elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: The innovations in infrastructure, workforce development, and resources and funding proposed herein may contribute to facilitating a National Research Blueprint for Inherited Bleeding Disorders.

Research is critical to advancing the diagnosis and care of people with inherited bleeding disorders (PWIBD). This research requires significant infrastructure, including people and resources. Hemophilia treatment centers (HTC) need many different skilled care professionals including doctors, nurses, and other providers; also statisticians, data managers, and other experts to process patients' clinical information into research. Attracting diverse qualified professionals to the clinical and research work requires long-term planning, recruiting individuals in training programs and retaining them as they become experts. Research infrastructure includes physical servers running database software, networks that link them, and the environment in which these components function. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN) coordinate and fund data collection at HTCs on the health and well-being of thousands of PWIBD into a registry used in research studies.National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) and ATHN asked our group of health care professionals, technology experts, and lived experience experts (LEE) to identify the infrastructure, workforce, and resources needed to do the research most important to PWIBD. We identified the types of CDC/ATHN studies all HTCs should be able to perform, and the physical and human infrastructure this requires. We prioritized finding the best clinical trial designs to study inherited bleeding disorders, identifying ways to share personnel and tools between HTCs, and innovating how research is governed and funded. Involving LEEs in designing, managing, and carrying out research will be key in conducting research to improve the lives of PWIBD.

The GOAL-Hem journey: Shared decision making and patient-centred outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: GOAL-Hem is a novel, haemophilia-specific, patient-centred outcome measure (PCOM) based on goal attainment scaling, allowing people with haemophilia (PwH) to set and monitor the attainment of individualized goals for treatment. AIM: To provide a thorough overview of the creation, validation, and development of GOAL-Hem. METHODS: Clinician workshops were held to develop a haemophilia-specific goal menu. Qualitative data from semistructured interviews with PwH and their caregivers guided further revisions to the goal menu (i.e., goal domains and descriptors). A feasibility study was performed including a 12-week, prospective, noninterventional evaluation involving clinicians and PwH at four US haemophilia treatment centres. Finally, the Patient Voice Study gathered feedback from PwH and their caregivers via an online survey, interviews, and a focus group. RESULTS: The feasibility study validated GOAL-Hem with successful outcomes in construct/content validity and responsiveness, including a large effect in patient- and clinician-rated goal attainments. The Patient Voice Study led to significant refinement of GOAL-Hem goals and descriptors, resulting in a more straightforward and relatable menu for PwH and their caregivers. Overall, GOAL-Hem captured qualitative data in areas important to PwH and employed quantitative methods to evaluate meaningful changes in those areas. The individualized tool was well equipped to handle the complex and chronic nature of haemophilia and was endorsed by PwH, their caregivers, and clinicians. CONCLUSION: The GOAL-Hem development journey may serve as a roadmap for other PCOMs in a variety of settings, including clinical studies, haemophilia treatment centres for care planning, and as a tool to gather real-world evidence.

Incorporating the patient voice and patient engagement in GOAL-Hem: Advancing patient-centric hemophilia care.

BACKGROUND: Goal Attainment Scaling for Hemophilia (GOAL-Hem) is a novel, hemophilia-specific, validated patient engagement tool and patient-reported outcome instrument. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the degree to which the language of GOAL-Hem was patient-centric and the content valuable and relevant for people with hemophilia (PWH) and/or their caregivers. PATIENTS/METHODS: Patients and caregivers participated in one of three investigations: an online survey, one-on-one patient interviews, or a focus group. The survey and interviews assessed the clarity and relevance of the GOAL-Hem menu items. Interviews were semistructured, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Feedback from interviews was coded as "clear," "unclear," "remove," or "add." The focus group explored participants' experience of GOAL-Hem and elicited recommendations for implementation. Quotations from focus group and interview transcripts were indexed and charted to emergent themes for analysis. RESULTS: Participants comprised 19 adults with hemophilia and 19 caregivers of children with hemophilia (survey, n = 20; interview, n = 12; focus group, n = 6). After their feedback, 32% (15/48) of goals were retained unchanged. Further feedback resulted in the removal of 45% (286/635) of the goal descriptors, and 30% (193/635) of the retained descriptors were modified. Three new (total = 38) goals and 42 descriptors (total = 368) were added to the menu. Thematic analysis indicated that participants were enthusiastic about patient-centric language, empowered through the goal-setting process, and recognized GOAL-Hem could measure clinically meaningful change. CONCLUSION: By listening closely to patients and caregivers, we refined GOAL-Hem to better capture the experiences of PWH, enhance content validity, and augment implementation strategies. Incorporating the patient voice is integral to developing patient-centered outcome measures.

Exploring the responsiveness of goal attainment scaling in relation to number of goals set in a sample of hemophilia-A patients.

PURPOSE: Guidelines for the use of goal attainment scaling (GAS) recommend that the patient specify at least three goals. Even so, this may not always be feasible or align with patient preferences. Investigations into the psychometric properties of GAS using three or more goals largely support its reliability, validity, and responsiveness compared with standard measures. As evaluations of responsiveness rely on variability estimates, this metric may be impacted when GAS is based on fewer than three goals. For this reason, we investigated the responsiveness of one- and two-goal GAS. METHODS: Secondary analyses were conducted on data from a mixed sample of pediatric, adolescent and adult subjects with hemophilia A. The standardized response mean (SRM) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess responsiveness of one- and two-goal GAS at six and twelve weeks. RESULTS: Both one-goal and two-goal GAS demonstrated similar responsiveness to change at 6-week (Patient-Rated GAS: one-goal SRM [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.45-1.08], two-goal = 0.96 [0.68-1.30]; Clinician-Rated GAS: one-goal = 1.26 [0.81-1.77], two-goal = 1.01 [0.73-1.32]) and 12-week follow-up (Patient-Rated GAS: one-goal SRM [95% CI] = 1.14 [0.53-1.71], two-goal = 1.35 [0.92-1.82]; Clinician-Rated GAS: one-goal = 1.71 [1.12-2.30], two-goal = 1.48 [1.02-2.02]). Larger SRMs were observed for clinician-rated GAS, but all were within the rubric of a large effect size. CONCLUSIONS: One-goal GAS is responsive to change in a clinical population. Further research is recommended in a larger sample where responsiveness of one- and multiple-goal GAS can be compared.

Polyethylene Glycol Exposure with Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), PEGylated (rurioctocog alfa pegol) and Other Therapies Indicated for the Pediatric Population: History and Safety.

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is an inert, water soluble polymer, used for decades in pharmaceuticals. Although PEG is considered safe, concerns persist about the potential adverse effects of long-term exposure to PEG-containing therapies, specifically in children, following the introduction of PEGylated recombinant factor products used for the treatment of hemophilia. Given the absence of long-term surveillance data, and to evaluate the potential risk, we estimated PEG exposure in the pediatric population receiving PEGylated therapies with pediatric indications administered intravenously or intramuscularly. We used a range of pediatric weights and doses based on prescribing information (PI) or treatment guidelines. PIs and reporting websites were searched for information about adverse events (AEs). For a child weighing 50 kg on the highest prophylactic dose of a FVIII product, the range of total PEG exposure was 40⁻21,840 mg/year; for factor IX (FIX) products, the range was 13⁻1342 mg/year; and for other products, the range was 383⁻26,743 mg/year, primarily as a derivative excipient. No AE patterns attributable to PEG were found for any of these products, including potential renal, neurological, or hepatic AEs. Our analyses suggest the pediatric population has had substantial exposure to PEG for several decades, with no evidence of adverse consequences.