Cdc42 induces filopodia by promoting the formation of an IRSp53:Mena complex

AbstractBackground: The Rho GTPases Rho, Rac, and Cdc42 regulate the organization of the actin cytoskeleton by interacting with multiple, distinct downstream effector proteins. Cdc42 controls the formation of actin bundle-containing filopodia at the cellular periphery. The molecular mechanism for this remains as yet unclear.Results: We report here that Cdc42 interacts with IRSp53/BAP2α, an SH3 domain-containing scaffold protein, at a partial CRIB motif and that an N-terminal fragment of IRSp53 binds, via an intramolecular interaction, to the CRIB motif-containing central region. Overexpression of IRSp53 in fibroblasts leads to the formation of filopodia, and both this and Cdc42-induced filopodia are inhibited by expression of the N-terminal IRSp53 fragment. Using affinity chromatography, we have identified Mena, an Ena/VASP family member, as interacting with the SH3 domain of IRSp53. Mena and IRSp53 act synergistically to promote filopodia formation.Conclusion: We conclude that the interaction of Cdc42 with the partial CRIB motif of IRSp53 relieves an intramolecular, autoinhibitory interaction with the N terminus, allowing the recruitment of Mena to the IRSp53 SH3 domain. This IRSp53:Mena complex initiates actin filament assembly into filopodia

Ethical aspects of hemophilia gene therapy:a qualitative interview study with stakeholders

Background: There are great expectations for the potential role of gene therapy in the treatment of hemophilia. At the same time, developments in the field of hemophilia gene therapy have always raised ethical issues. It remains unknown how these ethical issues are perceived by stakeholders, particularly regarding the most recent developments in the field. Objectives: To obtain insight into stakeholders’ morally reasoned opinions on gene therapy for hemophilia. Methods: We conducted qualitative research with Dutch people with hemophilia (n = 13), parents of children with hemophilia (n = 5), physicians (n = 4), nurses (n = 3), a regulator (n = 1), and a representative from a pharmaceutical company (n = 1). We conducted semistructured interviews based on a topic list and reported the results according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Results: We identified 3 main themes. The theme freedom and independence describes the hope people with hemophilia have of increasing their freedom through gene therapy, as well as concerns that gene therapy increases their dependence on their treatment center. The theme trust and altruism describes how people with hemophilia have a high level of trust in their physician and treatment center as well as in scientific research. As a result of this trust, they are willing to participate in research to help other people with hemophilia. The theme incremental benefits describes doubts respondents have about the added value of gene therapy compared to standard treatment. Conclusion: Stakeholders embrace the theoretical potential of gene therapy, while several people with hemophilia question the added value of the current gene transfer products for themselves.</p

Desmopressin in nonsevere hemophilia A:patient perspectives on use and efficacy

Background: Desmopressin increases plasma factor VIII and von Willebrand factor levels in persons with nonsevere hemophilia A. Patients’ perspectives on desmopressin are relevant to increase and optimize its suboptimal use. However, patients’ views on desmopressin are not reported. Objectives: To evaluate the perspectives of persons with nonsevere hemophilia A on desmopressin use, barriers for its use, side effects, and their knowledge about desmopressin's efficacy and side effects. Methods: Persons with nonsevere hemophilia A were included in a cross-sectional, national, multicenter study. Questionnaires were filled out by adult patients and children aged ≥12 years themselves. Caretakers filled out questionnaires for children aged &lt;12 years. Results: In total, 706 persons with nonsevere hemophilia A were included (544 mild, 162 moderate, [age range, 0–88 years]). Of 508 patients, 234 (50%) patients reported previous desmopressin use. Desmopressin was considered as at least moderately effective in 171 of 187 (90%) patients. Intranasal administration was the modality of choice for 138 of 182 (76%) patients. Flushing was the most reported side effect in 54 of 206 (26%) adults and 7 of 22 (32%) children. The most frequently reported advantage and disadvantage were the convenience of intranasal, out-of-hospital administration by 56% (126/227) and side effects in 18% (41/227), respectively. Patients’ self-perceived knowledge was unsatisfactory or unknown in 28% (63/225). Conclusion: Overall, desmopressin was most often used intranasally and considered effective, with flushing as the most common side effect. The most mentioned advantage was the convenience of intranasal administration and disadvantage was side effects. More information and education on desmopressin could answer unmet needs in patients with current or future desmopressin treatment.</p

Patient Perspectives on Novel Treatments in Haemophilia: A Qualitative Study

Background and Objective: New treatments for haemophilia are under development or entering the market, including extended half-life products, designer drugs and gene therapy, thereby increasing treatment options for haemophilia. It is currently unknown how people with haemophilia decide whether to switch to a new treatment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore what factors may play a role when Dutch patients and parents of boys with moderate or severe haemophilia make decisions about whether to switch to a different treatment, and how disease and treatment characteristics may affect these decisions. This may aid clinical teams in tailored information provision and shared decision making. Methods: We conducted interviews among adults with moderately severe or severe haemophilia and parents of young boys with severe haemophilia. We aimed to include participants from a variety of backgrounds in terms of involvement in the haemophilia community, age, treatment centre and treatments. Participants were recruited through the Netherlands Haemophilia Society and a haemophilia treatment centre. Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Twelve people with haemophilia and two mothers of boys with haemophilia were included. In general, participants reported to be satisfied with their current treatment. However, they considered ease of use of the medication (fewer injections, easier handling, alternative administration) an added value of new treatments. Participants were aware of the high cost of coagulation factor products and some expressed their concern about the Netherlands Haemophilia Society’s long-term willingness to pay for current and novel treatments, especially for increased usage due to high-risk activities. Participants also expressed their concerns about the short- and long-term safety of new treatments and believed the effects of gene therapy were not yet fully understood. Participants expected their treatment team to inform them when a particular new treatment would be suitable for them. Conclusions: With the number of treatment options set to increase, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of how patient experiences shape patients’ decisions about new therapies

The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A

Objectives: Anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities. Methods: All persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII &gt; 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII &lt; 1 IU/dL)] with an available plasma sample who participated in the sixth Hemophilia in the Netherlands study between 2018 and 2019 were included. The presence of anti-FVIII antibodies of the immunoglobulin A, M, and G isotypes and IgG subclasses, along with antibody titer levels, were assessed using direct-binding ELISAs. FVIII specificity was assessed using a competition-based ELISA approach. The inhibitor status was determined using the Nijmegen ultra-sensitive Bethesda assay (NusBA) and the Nijmegen Bethesda assay (NBA). Results: In total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor. Conclusion: In this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors.</p

The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A

Objectives: Anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities. Methods: All persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII &gt; 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII &lt; 1 IU/dL)] with an available plasma sample who participated in the sixth Hemophilia in the Netherlands study between 2018 and 2019 were included. The presence of anti-FVIII antibodies of the immunoglobulin A, M, and G isotypes and IgG subclasses, along with antibody titer levels, were assessed using direct-binding ELISAs. FVIII specificity was assessed using a competition-based ELISA approach. The inhibitor status was determined using the Nijmegen ultra-sensitive Bethesda assay (NusBA) and the Nijmegen Bethesda assay (NBA). Results: In total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor. Conclusion: In this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors.</p

Mortality, life expectancy, and causes of death of persons with hemophilia in the Netherlands 2001–2018

Background: Treatment of patients with hemophilia has advanced over the past decades, but it is unknown whether this has resulted in a normal life expectancy in the Netherlands. Objective: This observational cohort study aimed to assess all-cause and cause-specific mortality in patients with hemophilia in the Netherlands between 2001 and 2018 and to compare mortality and life expectancy with previous survival assessments from 1973 onward. Patients/methods: All 1066 patients with hemophilia who participated in a nationwide survey in 2001 were followed until July 2018. Results: Information on 1031 individuals (97%) was available, of whom 142 (14%) deceased during follow-up. Compared with the general Dutch male population, mortality of patients with hemophilia was still increased (standardized mortality ratio: 1.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.2–1.7). Intracranial bleeding and malignancies were the most common causes of death. Estimated median life expectancy of patients with hemophilia was 77 years, 6 years lower than the median life expectancy of the general Dutch male population (83 years). Over the past 45 years, death rates of patients with hemophilia have consistently decreased, approaching the survival experience of the general population. Over the past decades, mortality due to human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus infections has decreased, death due to intracranial hemorrhages has increased, and death due to ischemic hear

The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A

ObjectivesAnti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities.MethodsAll persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII &gt; 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII &lt; 1 IU/dL)] with an available plasma sample who participated in the sixth Hemophilia in the Netherlands study between 2018 and 2019 were included. The presence of anti-FVIII antibodies of the immunoglobulin A, M, and G isotypes and IgG subclasses, along with antibody titer levels, were assessed using direct-binding ELISAs. FVIII specificity was assessed using a competition-based ELISA approach. The inhibitor status was determined using the Nijmegen ultra-sensitive Bethesda assay (NusBA) and the Nijmegen Bethesda assay (NBA).ResultsIn total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor.ConclusionIn this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors

Ethical aspects of hemophilia gene therapy:a qualitative interview study with stakeholders

Background: There are great expectations for the potential role of gene therapy in the treatment of hemophilia. At the same time, developments in the field of hemophilia gene therapy have always raised ethical issues. It remains unknown how these ethical issues are perceived by stakeholders, particularly regarding the most recent developments in the field.Objectives: To obtain insight into stakeholders’ morally reasoned opinions on gene therapy for hemophilia.Methods: We conducted qualitative research with Dutch people with hemophilia (n = 13), parents of children with hemophilia (n = 5), physicians (n = 4), nurses (n = 3), a regulator (n = 1), and a representative from a pharmaceutical company (n = 1). We conducted semistructured interviews based on a topic list and reported the results according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines.Results: We identified 3 main themes. The theme freedom and independence describes the hope people with hemophilia have of increasing their freedom through gene therapy, as well as concerns that gene therapy increases their dependence on their treatment center. The theme trust and altruism describes how people with hemophilia have a high level of trust in their physician and treatment center as well as in scientific research. As a result of this trust, they are willing to participate in research to help other people with hemophilia. The theme incremental benefits describes doubts respondents have about the added value of gene therapy compared to standard treatment.Conclusion: Stakeholders embrace the theoretical potential of gene therapy, while several people with hemophilia question the added value of the current gene transfer products for themselves.</p

Patient Perspectives on Novel Treatments in Haemophilia:A Qualitative Study

Background and Objective: New treatments for haemophilia are under development or entering the market, including extended half-life products, designer drugs and gene therapy, thereby increasing treatment options for haemophilia. It is currently unknown how people with haemophilia decide whether to switch to a new treatment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore what factors may play a role when Dutch patients and parents of boys with moderate or severe haemophilia make decisions about whether to switch to a different treatment, and how disease and treatment characteristics may affect these decisions. This may aid clinical teams in tailored information provision and shared decision making. Methods: We conducted interviews among adults with moderately severe or severe haemophilia and parents of young boys with severe haemophilia. We aimed to include participants from a variety of backgrounds in terms of involvement in the haemophilia community, age, treatment centre and treatments. Participants were recruited through the Netherlands Haemophilia Society and a haemophilia treatment centre. Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Twelve people with haemophilia and two mothers of boys with haemophilia were included. In general, participants reported to be satisfied with their current treatment. However, they considered ease of use of the medication (fewer injections, easier handling, alternative administration) an added value of new treatments. Participants were aware of the high cost of coagulation factor products and some expressed their concern about the Netherlands Haemophilia Society’s long-term willingness to pay for current and novel treatments, especially for increased usage due to high-risk activities. Participants also expressed their concerns about the short- and long-term safety of new treatments and believed the effects of gene therapy were not yet fully understood. Participants expected their treatment team to inform them when a particular new treatment would be suitable for them. Conclusions: With the number of treatment options set to increase, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of how patient experiences shape patients’ decisions about new therapies