Wheeler, Allison P.

ABSTRACTImmune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) is characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and microvascular occlusion secondary to acquired ADAMTS13 deficiency. Contemporary data regarding iTTP treatment practices in the US, including the use of caplacizumab, are lacking. We aimed to characterize the demographics and therapies, including medications and apheresis practices, in patients with iTTP in the US. We retrospectively analyzed iTTP cases at 15 sites in the US that provide comprehensive care for patients with iTTP. The time‐period assessed was from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021. Our primary objective was to analyze data by iTTP episode, inclusive of initial episodes and relapses. A total of 390 iTTP episodes were reported for 280 unique individuals (187 females, 93 males). Thirty‐day mortality was 3.7% (14/374), and 6‐month mortality was 7.4% (27/367). TPE details were reported for 343 episodes, among which 261 underwent at least one procedure (median 6, IQR 3–11). Among the 261 episodes with at least one therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) performed, 82.0% (214/261) used only plasma. Caplacizumab was used either alone or in combination with other agents in 43 (11.0%) episodes. Management strategies for iTTP remain varied across centers in the US, with a variety of combinations for TPE replacement fluids and therapeutic agents, as well as limited use of caplacizumab. Further research and standardization of treatment regimens may further reduce mortality in this condition.

AbstractPrior studies have suggested that immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) may display seasonal variation; however, methodologic limitations and sample sizes have diminished the ability to perform a rigorous assessment. This 5‐year retrospective study assessed the epidemiology of iTTP and determined whether it displays a seasonal pattern. Patients with both initial and relapsed iTTP (defined as a disintegrin and metalloprotease with thrombospondin type motifs 13 activity <10%) from 24 tertiary centers in Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, and the US were included. Seasons were defined as: Northern Hemisphere—winter (December–February); spring (March–May); summer (June–August); autumn (September–November) and Southern Hemisphere—winter (June–August); spring (September–November); summer (December–February); autumn (March–May). Additional outcomes included the mean temperature in months with and without an iTTP episode at each site. A total of 583 patients experienced 719 iTTP episodes. The observed proportion of iTTP episodes during the winter was significantly greater than expected if equally distributed across seasons (28.5%, 205/719, 25.3%–31.9%; p = .03). Distance from the equator and mean temperature deviation both positively correlated with the proportion of iTTP episodes during winter. Acute iTTP episodes were associated with the winter season and colder temperatures, with a second peak during summer. Occurrence during winter was most pronounced at sites further from the equator and/or with greater annual temperature deviations. Understanding the etiologies underlying seasonal patterns of disease may assist in discovery and development of future preventative therapies and inform models for resource utilization.

Abstract Patients treated with antineoplastic therapy often develop thrombocytopenia requiring platelet transfusion, which has potential to exacerbate pulmonary injury. This study tested the hypothesis that amotosalen-UVA pathogen–reduced platelet components (PRPCs) do not potentiate pulmonary dysfunction compared with conventional platelet components (CPCs). A prospective, multicenter, open-label, sequential cohort study evaluated the incidence of treatment-emergent assisted mechanical ventilation initiated for pulmonary dysfunction (TEAMV-PD). The first cohort received CPC. After the CPC cohort, each site enrolled a second cohort transfused with PRPC. Other outcomes included clinically significant pulmonary adverse events (CSPAE) and the incidence of treatment-emergent acute respiratory distress syndrome (TEARDS) diagnosed by blinded expert adjudication. The incidence of TEAMV-PD in all patients (1068 PRPC and 1223 CPC) was less for PRPC (1.7 %) than CPC (3.1%) with a treatment difference of –1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], –2.7 to –0.2). In patients requiring ≥2 PCs, the incidence of TEAMV-PD was reduced for PRPC recipients compared with CPC recipients (treatment difference, –2.4%; 95% CI, –4.2 to –0.6). CSPAE increased with increasing PC exposure but were not significantly different between the cohorts. For patients receiving ≥2 platelet transfusions, TEARDS occurred in 1.3% PRPC and 2.6% CPC recipients (P = .086). Bayesian analysis demonstrated PRPC may be superior in reducing TEAMV-PD and TEARDS for platelet transfusion recipients compared with CPC recipients, with 99.2% and 88.8% probability, respectively. In this study, PRPC compared with CPC demonstrated high probability of reduced severe pulmonary injury requiring assisted mechanical ventilation in patients with hematology disorders dependent on platelet transfusion. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02549222.

SummaryThe thrombotic risk with haemoglobin C trait (HbAC) or haemoglobin C disease (HbCC) is unclear. However, individuals with HbCC have demonstrated chronic haemolysis, higher blood viscosity and altered rheology when compared to individuals with wild‐type haemoglobin (HbAA). These physiological alterations may theoretically translate to increased risk of thrombosis; therefore, a systematic literature review was performed to investigate the possible association between HbAC and/or HbCC and thrombosis. Twenty‐two studies met inclusion criteria representing 782 individuals with HbAC (n = 694) or HbCC (n = 88). Fifteen studies described the presence/absence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with HbAC (n = 685) or HbCC (n = 79), while seven studies described patients with HbAC (n = 9) or HbCC (n = 9) and arterial thrombosis. Most (n = 20) studies were case reports or case series; however, two studies suggested a potential increased VTE risk with HbAC compared to HbAA in (i) all patients (OR 2.2, 95% CI: 0.9–5.5) and in (ii) pregnant individuals (RR 3.7, 95% CI 0.9–16). This review is the largest assessment of patients with HbC trait or disease and thrombosis to date; despite its limitations, the findings suggest HbC may be a predisposing risk factor to thrombosis. Prospective cohort studies are warranted to definitively elucidate the risk of thrombosis in this population.

AbstractBackgroundPlatelet transfusion carries risk of transfusion‐transmitted infection (TTI). Pathogen reduction of platelet components (PRPC) is designed to reduce TTI. Pulmonary adverse events (AEs), including transfusion‐related acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occur with platelet transfusion.Study designAn open label, sequential cohort study of transfusion‐dependent hematology‐oncology patients was conducted to compare pulmonary safety of PRPC with conventional PC (CPC). The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment‐emergent assisted mechanical ventilation (TEAMV) by non‐inferiority. Secondary outcomes included: time to TEAMV, ARDS, pulmonary AEs, peri‐transfusion AE, hemorrhagic AE, transfusion reactions (TRs), PC and red blood cell (RBC) use, and mortality.ResultsBy modified intent‐to‐treat (mITT), 1068 patients received 5277 PRPC and 1223 patients received 5487 CPC. The cohorts had similar demographics, primary disease, and primary therapy. PRPC were non‐inferior to CPC for TEAMV (treatment difference −1.7%, 95% CI: (−3.3% to −0.1%); odds ratio = 0.53, 95% CI: (0.30, 0.94). The cumulative incidence of TEAMV for PRPC (2.9%) was significantly less than CPC (4.6%, p = .039). The incidence of ARDS was less, but not significantly different, for PRPC (1.0% vs. 1.8%, p = .151; odds ratio = 0.57, 95% CI: (0.27, 1.18). AE, pulmonary AE, and mortality were not different between cohorts. TRs were similar for PRPC and CPC (8.3% vs. 9.7%, p = .256); and allergic TR were significantly less with PRPC (p = .006). PC and RBC use were not increased with PRPC.DiscussionPRPC demonstrated reduced TEAMV with no excess treatment‐related pulmonary morbidity.

Introduction: Among the most challenging complications of hemophilia A is inhibitor formation. A T-cell dependent B-cell response to exogenous factor VIII (FVIII), inhibitors result in a high burden of disease, with poorly controlled bleeding, twice the hospitalizations, 10-fold the cost, and 3.5-fold the mortality of non-inhibitor patients. Thus, a major goal of hemophilia management is to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. With the availability of novel therapies, including eloctate, a recombinant Fc-fusion protein (rFVIII-Fc) which induces regulatory T cells to promote FVIII tolerance, and emicizumab, a bispecific monoclonal FVIII mimetic, we designed the INHIBIT Clinical Trials Platform (X01HL143024), Fig.1. The platform is composed of two linked randomized phase III trials, the Inhibitor Prevention Trial (NCT04303559), comparing rFVIII-Fc vs emicizumab prophylaxis to prevent inhibitors, and the Inhibitor Eradication Trial (NCT04303572), comparing rFVIII-Fc immune tolerance induction (ITI) plus emicizumab vs rFVIII-Fc ITI alone to eradicate inhibitors. The platform uses adaptive design to incorporate historical data (Bayesian priors) on inhibitor formation to increase power and promote efficient use of rare data. Yet, there is equipoise regarding the optimal approach to inhibitor prevention and eradication, and, as clinical practice is changing, we aimed to test the feasibility of the INHIBIT trial design. Methods: To establish design feasibility, we conducted interviews with 30 hemophilia treatment center (HTC) physicians participating in the INHIBIT trials, to determine prophylaxis and tolerance regimens they prescribe and perceived barriers to the INHIBIT trials design. A 4-question survey was subsequently emailed to these physicians to ascertain the initial prophylaxis regimens they prescribe in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A, and the initial immune tolerance induction (ITI) they prescribe in high-responding inhibitor patients with severe hemophilia A; if new inhibitors had been observed during emicizumab prophylaxis, and willingness to participate in post-trial surveillance. Results: In interviews, HTC physicians indicated the issues that influenced choice of prophylaxis/ ITI regimen were patient preference, family history of inhibitors, infusion frequency, IV access, port requirement, and family fatigue. In the absence of clinical trials data in PUPs, there was general agreement that emicizumab prophylaxis, with it simpler subcutaneous (SQ) administration, might delay or potentially prevent inhibitors. Survey findings in Table 1 indicated 75% of physicians prescribe extended half-life (EHL) FVIII in a once-weekly prophylaxis regimen, as planned in the Prevention Trial, despite the persistent 27% inhibitor rate (ALong PUPs Trial, Königs et al, ISTH 2020) and potential risks with port use. There was support for the 1:3 preferential randomization to emicizumab in the Prevention Trial due to the simpler SQ route, despite concern it might delay rather than prevent inhibitor formation, although no inhibitors were reported by physician survey with emicizumab use alone. There was also concern that breakthrough bleeds requiring FVIII during emicizumab prophylaxis, might lead to immune activation and inhibitor formation. There was strong agreement, however, in 29 (97%) of physicians to participate in post-trial surveillance for long-term inhibitor outcomes. FVIII ITI was considered essential to eradicate inhibitors, despite the intensity of the infusion regimen. Notably, 60% prescribe emicizumab with FVIII ITI, as planned in the Eradicate Trial, although the every-other-day infusion was considered a potential barrier to participation. Omitting FVIII ITI was not favored due to the risk of inhibitor anamnesis if FVIII treatment was subsequently required for surgery or acute hemorrhages. Despite these concerns, there was agreement to participate in the trials. Discussion: Physician interviews and surveys confirm there is heterogeneity in current hemophilia clinical practice, specifically in initial prophylaxis regimens and in initial immune tolerance regimens, including agent choice and duration. However, there is physician consensus with the INHIBIT trial aims and with the proposed INHIBIT trial regimens to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. Disclosures Ragni: Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam/Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioMarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ATHN: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding. Seaman:Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Acharya:Novonordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BPL: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Wheeler:Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UniQure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tarango:Takeda/Shire: Honoraria, Other; Bayer: Consultancy, Other; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other. Dunn:ATHN: Research Funding; Spire: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; World Federation of Hemophilia USA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; uniQure: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Nationwide Children's Hospital: Current Employment. Kulkarni:Sanofi/ Bioverativ, Bayer, Biomarin, Shire/Takeda, Novo Nordisk, Freeline: Other: clinical trial research grants ; Bioverativ/Sanofi, BPL, Genentech, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Takeda, Catalyst Bioscience Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ahuja:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; XaTek, Inc.: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Chitlur:Takeda: Honoraria; Biovertiv: Honoraria; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pipe:Apcintex, Bayer, BioMarin, Catalyst Biosciences, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Freeline, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Takeda, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure: Consultancy; Siemens: Research Funding; Medical and Scientific Advisory Council to the National Hemophilia Foundation; Medical Advisory Board to World Federation of Hemophilia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malec:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy. Leissinger:Bayer: Consultancy; Kedrion: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Uniqure: Consultancy; Spark: Consultancy. Carpenter:Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Academy of Pediatrics: Other: PREP Heme/Onc editorial board; Kedrion: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Knoll:NovoNordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Bioverativ Inc: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Biomarin: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Young:Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer, CSL Behring, Freeline, UniQure: Consultancy; BioMarin, Freeline, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Genzyme, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure: Honoraria. Thornburg:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Ironwood Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Research Funding; Biomarin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; National Hemophilia Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lucas:CRISPR Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hwang:Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

Background: Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder, affecting 1% of the population, and characterized by deficient or defective von Willebrand factor (VWF). Among women with VWD, up to 80% have heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), many of whom have depleted iron stores and iron deficiency anemia with reduced physical functioning, anxiety, depression, and poor quality of life. HMB is a serious problem causing significant health burden for those affected. The lack of effective therapies for menorrhagia is a major unmet healthcare need in women with VWD: in up to 30% desmopressin (DDAVP), combined oral contraceptives (COCs) hormones, or the recommended non-hormonal agent, tranexamic acid (Lysteda®, TA) may be ineffective or poorly tolerated. VWF concentrates, including plasma-derived VWF (pdVWF, Humate-P®) and recombinant VWF (rVWF, Vonvendi®) safely reduce bleeds in VWD, but few data exist on VWF use in menorrhagia, and no prospective trials are available to guide treatment. As rVWF has higher purity, potency, and a longer half-life than pdVWF, this phase III trial will compare rVWF with TA in reducing menorrhagia in women with type 1 VWD. Methods: This is an NHLBI-funded U01 phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized, crossover trial in to compare IV rVWF vs. po TA in reducing menorrhagia in type 1 VWD, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02606045. Women with type 1 VWD, VWF:RCo<0.50 IU/dL and menorrhagia, defined as pictorial blood assessment chart score (PBAC)>100 in at least one of the last two cycles, are eligible. Exclusions include hypothyroidism, past thrombosis, and renal disease. Subjects are randomized to rVWF 40 IU/kg IV day 1 vs. TA 1300 mg po three times daily days 1-5 in each of two consecutive cycles. The order of treatment is determined by randomization: in Group 1, rVWF is given in cycles 1 and 2, and TA in cycles 3 and 4; while in Group 2, TA is given in cycles 1 and 2, and rVWF in cycles 3 and 4. A rescue dose day of rVWF 40 IU/kg may be given day 2 of cycles in which rVWF is given. The primary endpoint is a 40-point reduction in PBAC, a validated measure of menstrual loss, after 2 cycles. As rVWF is a greater burden (IV, cost), to show it is superior to TA, it should improve PBAC 40 points more from baseline than TA. Secondary endpoints are cycle severity, cycle length, QoL (SF-36, Ruta, CDC-HRQ0L-14, CES-D), and satisfaction survey. Treatment response will also be compared with VWF assays and VWF genotype. Safety is assessed by number of rescue doses, other bleeding, thrombosis, and allergic reaction. Our research hypothesis is that rVWF will be superior, producing a greater improvement, by at least 40 points, in PBAC, than TA. We also hypothesize that rVWF will be as safe, tolerable, and acceptable as TA, and that VWF assays and VWF genotype will predict response to treatment. A sample size of 60 (inflated to 66 for 5% attrition) will provide 84% power to detect a difference in improvement of 40 points between rVWF and TA. Analysis will be by intent-to-treat analyses, with a two-tailed alternative hypothesis with type 1 error rate of 0.05, a 4-period 2-group (AABB/BBAA) crossover design, and an estimated between-subject standard deviation (SD) of 63 points and within subject SD of 100 points. Results: A total of 442 potential subjects have been identified at 19 participating HTCs, of whom 33 (7.5%) are eligible, and 2 enrolled. The most common reason for ineligibility is use of an IUD (15.6%), COCs (9.4%), age <18 years (6.2%), pregnancy (6.2%), breastfeeding (6.2%), and VWF prophylaxis (3.1%). Nursing services have been contracted for weekend rVWF infusions. In-person site visits include hands-on web portal training, including a password-protected, FDA-validated data entry system, eSYSDM, use of real-time data form completion by tablet, infusion tracking and training, real-time cycle reporting, patient-training checklists, and protocol training and monitoring. Local gynecologists have been invited to refer potentially eligible patients. Discussion: In conclusion, rVWF is a high-purity VWF concentrate with a longer half-life than pdVWF. In this multicenter phase III trial, rVWF is being compared to the current non-hormonal standard, TA, to reduce menorrhagia in adult women with type 1 VWD. rVWF is safe and effective in prevention and treatment of bleeds, and this trial will determine if rVWF reduces menorrhagia to a degree sufficient to justify its IV route and cost. Disclosures Ragni: Sangamo: Research Funding; Alnylam/Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; ICER: Consultancy; OPKO: Research Funding; Bioverativ/Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Biomarin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire/Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Study drug; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seaman:Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Sidonio:Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda-Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Grifols: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Uniqure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kedrion: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuriakose:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy. Malec:Hemostasis and Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spark: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Honoraria; CSL: Honoraria. Rodgers:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Wheeler:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

SummaryBackgroundChildren undergoing posterior spinal fusion experience high blood loss often necessitating transfusion. An appropriately activated coagulation system provides hemostasis during surgery, but pathologic dysregulation can cause progressive bleeding and increased transfusions. Despite receiving antifibrinolytics for clot stabilization, many patients still require transfusions.AimsWe sought to examine the association of dilutional coagulopathy with blood loss and blood transfusion in posterior spinal fusion for pediatric scoliosis patients.MethodsA retrospective, single institution study of children undergoing posterior spinal fusion >6 levels with a standardized, prospective anesthetic protocol utilizing antifibrinolytics. Blood loss was evaluated using a hematocrit‐based calculation. To evaluate transfusions, a normalized Blood Product Transfusion calculation was developed. Factors associated with blood loss and blood transfusions were determined by univariate analysis and multivariate regression modeling with multicollinearity and mediation analysis.ResultsPatients received 73.7 mL/kg (standard deviation ±30.8) of fluid poor in coagulation factors. Estimated blood loss was 42.6 mL/kg (standard deviation ±18.0). There was a significant association between estimated blood loss and total fluids delivered (Spearman's rho = 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.33‐0.65, P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with normalized Blood Product Transfusion in this cohort included age, weight, scoliosis type, levels fused, total osteotomies, pelvic fixation, total fluid, maximum prothrombin time, and minimum fibrinogen. Regression modeling showed the best combination of variables for modeling normalized Blood Product Transfusion included patient weight, number of levels fused, total fluid administered, and maximum prothrombin time.ConclusionBlood product transfusion remains a frustrating problem in pediatric scoliosis. Identifying and controlling dilutional coagulopathy in these patients may reduce blood loss and the need for blood transfusion.