Long-Term Outcomes with Subcutaneous C1-Inhibitor Replacement Therapy for Prevention of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks

Background For the prevention of attacks of hereditary angioedema (HAE), the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous human C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-INH[SC]; HAEGARDA, CSL Behring) was established in the 16-week Clinical Study for Optimal Management of Preventing Angioedema with Low-Volume Subcutaneous C1-Inhibitor Replacement Therapy (COMPACT). Objective To assess the long-term safety, occurrence of angioedema attacks, and use of rescue medication with C1-INH(SC). Methods Open-label, randomized, parallel-arm extension of COMPACT across 11 countries. Patients with frequent angioedema attacks, either study treatment-naive or who had completed COMPACT, were randomly assigned (1:1) to 40 IU/kg or 60 IU/kg C1-INH(SC) twice per week, with conditional uptitration to optimize prophylaxis (ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT02316353). Results A total of 126 patients with a monthly attack rate of 4.3 in 3 months before entry in COMPACT were enrolled and treated for a mean of 1.5 years; 44 patients (34.9%) had more than 2 years of exposure. Mean steady-state C1-INH functional activity increased to 66.6% with 60 IU/kg. Incidence of adverse events was low and similar in both dose groups (11.3 and 8.5 events per patient-year for 40 IU/kg and 60 IU/kg, respectively). For 40 IU/kg and 60 IU/kg, median annualized attack rates were 1.3 and 1.0, respectively, and median rescue medication use was 0.2 and 0.0 times per year, respectively. Of 23 patients receiving 60 IU/kg for more than 2 years, 19 (83%) were attack-free during months 25 to 30 of treatment. Conclusions In patients with frequent HAE attacks, long-term replacement therapy with C1-INH(SC) is safe and exhibits a substantial and sustained prophylactic effect, with the vast majority of patients becoming free from debilitating disease symptoms

Biofield Therapies: Helpful or Full of Hype? A Best Evidence Synthesis

Biofield therapies (such as Reiki, therapeutic touch, and healing touch) are complementary medicine modalities that remain controversial and are utilized by a significant number of patients, with little information regarding their efficacy. This systematic review examines 66 clinical studies with a variety of biofield therapies in different patient populations. We conducted a quality assessment as well as a best evidence synthesis approach to examine evidence for biofield therapies in relevant outcomes for different clinical populations. Studies overall are of medium quality, and generally meet minimum standards for validity of inferences. Biofield therapies show strong evidence for reducing pain intensity in pain populations, and moderate evidence for reducing pain intensity hospitalized and cancer populations. There is moderate evidence for decreasing negative behavioral symptoms in dementia and moderate evidence for decreasing anxiety for hospitalized populations. There is equivocal evidence for biofield therapies' effects on fatigue and quality of life for cancer patients, as well as for comprehensive pain outcomes and affect in pain patients, and for decreasing anxiety in cardiovascular patients. There is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. Implications and future research directions are discussed