How to discuss gene therapy for haemophilia? A patient and physician perspective

Gene therapy has the potential to revolutionise treatment for patients with haemophilia and is close to entering clinical practice. While factor concentrates have improved outcomes, individuals still face a lifetime of injections, pain, progressive joint damage, the potential for inhibitor development and impaired quality of life. Recently published studies in adeno‐associated viral (AAV) vector‐mediated gene therapy have demonstrated improvement in endogenous factor levels over sustained periods, significant reduction in annualised bleed rates, lower exogenous factor usage and thus far a positive safety profile. In making the shared decision to proceed with gene therapy for haemophilia, physicians should make it clear that research is ongoing and that there are remaining evidence gaps, such as long‐term safety profiles and duration of treatment effect. The eligibility criteria for gene therapy trials mean that key patient groups may be excluded, eg children/adolescents, those with liver or kidney dysfunction and those with a prior history of factor inhibitors or pre‐existing neutralising AAV antibodies. Gene therapy offers a life‐changing opportunity for patients to reduce their bleeding risk while also reducing or abrogating the need for exogenous factor administration. Given the expanding evidence base, both physicians and patients will need sources of clear and reliable information to be able to discuss and judge the risks and benefits of treatment

Vitamin K Antagonists After 6 Months of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Cancer Patients with Venous Thromboembolism.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the treatment of choice in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism. However, data on continuing LMWH treatment beyond 6 months remain scanty. We used the RIETE (Registro Informatizado Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) registry to compare the rate of venous thromboembolism recurrences and major bleeding appearing beyond the first 6 months of anticoagulant therapy in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism, according to therapy with LMWH or vitamin K antagonists (VKA). We performed a propensity score-matched cohort study. After propensity matching, 482 cancer patients continued to receive LMWH and 482 switched to VKA. During the course of anticoagulant therapy (mean 275.5 days), 57 patients developed venous thrombosis recurrences (recurrent pulmonary embolism 26, recurrent deep vein thrombosis 29, both 2), 28 had major bleeding, 38 had nonmajor bleeding, and 129 died. No patient died of recurrent venous thrombosis, and 5 patients died of bleeding (2 were on LMWH, 3 on VKA). Patients who continued with LMWH had a similar rate of deep vein thrombosis recurrences (relative risk [RR] 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-2.93), pulmonary embolism recurrences (RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.34-1.58), major bleeding (RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.51-1.79), or nonmajor bleeding (RR 1.15; 95% CI, 0.55-2.40), compared with those who switched to VKA, but a higher mortality rate (RR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.13-2.20). In cancer patients with venous thromboembolism who completed 6 months of LMWH therapy, switching to VKA was associated with a similar risk of venous thrombosis recurrences or bleeding when compared with patients who continued LMWH