Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a prospective, observational study to evaluate diagnostic performance of the Tina-quant D-Dimer Gen.2 assay.

Background: D-Dimer testing is a diagnostic tool for exclusion of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Tina-quant® D-Dimer Gen.2 assay (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) in patients with low/intermediate pre-test probability of DVT/PE using standard, age-, and clinical probability-adjusted cut-offs. Methods: In this prospective, observational, multicenter study (July 2017-August 2019), plasma samples were collected from hospital emergency departments and specialist referral centers. DVT/PE was diagnosed under hospital standard procedures and imaging protocols. A standard D-dimer cut-off of 0.5 µg fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU)/ml was combined with the three-level Wells score; cut-offs adjusted for age (age × 0.01 µg FEU/ml for patients >50 years) and clinical probability (1 µg FEU/ml for low probability) were also evaluated. An assay comparison was conducted in a subset of samples using the Tina-quant D-Dimer Gen.2 assay and the previously established routine laboratory assay, STA-Liatest D-Di Plus assay (Stago Deutschland GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany). Results: 2,897 patients were enrolled; 2,516 completed the study (DVT cohort: 1,741 PE cohort: 775). Clinical assessment plus D-dimer testing using the standard cut-off resulted in 317 (DVT) and 230 (PE) false positives, and zero (DVT) and one (PE) false negatives. Negative predictive value (NPV) was 100.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 99.7%-100.0%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 98.8%-100.0%) for DVT and PE, respectively. After age-adjustment, NPV was 99.9% (95% CI: 99.6%-100.0%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.8-99.7) for DVT and PE, respectively. False positive rates decreased (>50%) in clinical probability-adjusted analyses vs. primary analysis. In the assay comparison, the performances of the two assays were comparable. Conclusion: The Tina-quant D-Dimer Gen.2 assay and standard D-dimer cut-off level combined with the three-level Wells score accurately identified patients with a very low probability of DVT/PE.

Annual Bleeding Rates: Pitfalls of Clinical Trial Outcomes in Hemophilia Patients.

Emerging treatment options for hemophilia, including gene therapy, modified factor products, antibody-based products, and other nonreplacement therapies, are in development or on their way to marketing authorization. For proof of efficacy, annual bleeding rates (ABRs) have become an increasingly important endpoint in hemophilia trials. We hypothesized that ABR analyses differ substantially between and within medicinal product classes and that the ABR observation period constitutes a major bias. For ABR characterization, an internal factor VIII (FVIII) treatment database has been built based on confidential clinical trial data submitted to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI). Furthermore, anonymized data from 46 trial protocols submitted for review to the PEI were analyzed (FVIII replacement, n = 27; antibody-based, n = 12; and gene therapy, n = 7) for methodology. Definitions of bleeding episodes and ABR observational periods differed substantially in clinical trials. In the initial observation phase, individual ABRs of patients, treated prophylactically for 1 year, vary by about 40% (P < 0.001), which finally led to a significant reduction of the ABR group mean by 20% (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the high variance in ABRs constitutes a major challenge in statistical analyses. In conclusion, considerable heterogeneity and bias in the ABR estimation in clinical trials was identified, which makes it substantially more difficult to compare the efficacy of different treatment regimens and products. Thus, awareness of the important pitfalls when using ABR as a clinical outcome is needed in the evaluation of hemophilia therapies for patients, physicians, regulators, and health technology assessment agencies.

Epidemiological Challenges in Rare Bleeding Disorders: FVIII Inhibitor Incidence in Haemophilia A Patients-A Known Issue of Unknown Origin.

There is a broad range of factor products approved in Germany for haemophilia A treatment. Since the introduction of recombinant coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) products in the 1990s, there has been substantial debate whether there is a difference in inhibitor incidence between single FVIII products or product classes. Neither haemophilia registries nor clinical studies, including a randomised controlled clinical trial, provided a consistent and definite answer. The reasons were mainly related to methodological challenges in conducting controlled studies in a rare disease. In this analysis, the most relevant epidemiological challenges and main problems were examined, including study bias, potential overlap of individual studies and advanced development of therapy and methods in the course of time. Meta-analyses on two levels showed that therapies using recombinant products resulted in different event rates when compared to plasma-derived products. These results are accompanied by substantial study heterogeneity evidenced by Cochran's Q tests. Only three studies have been identified that meet the standards of current clinical guidance. To finally resolve this ongoing and disputable safety issue of replacement therapy, collaboration among registry owners, academia and regulators must be fostered.