Activation of pyruvate kinase as therapeutic option for rare hemolytic anemias:Shedding new light on an old enzyme

Novel developments in therapies for various hereditary hemolytic anemias reflect the pivotal role of pyruvate kinase (PK), a key enzyme of glycolysis, in red blood cell (RBC) health. Without PK catalyzing one of the final steps of the Embden-Meyerhof pathway, there is no net yield of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) during glycolysis, the sole source of energy production required for proper RBC function and survival. In hereditary hemolytic anemias, RBC health is compromised and therefore lifespan is shortened. Although our knowledge on glycolysis in general and PK function in particular is solid, recent advances in genetic, molecular, biochemical, and metabolic aspects of hereditary anemias have improved our understanding of these diseases. These advances provide a rationale for targeting PK as therapeutic option in hereditary hemolytic anemias other than PK deficiency. This review summarizes the knowledge, rationale, (pre)clinical trials, and future advances of PK activators for this important group of rare diseases.</p

Evidence of Educational Bias in Cognitive Screening of Adults with Sickle Cell Disease: Comparison of Available Tools and Possible Strategies for Mitigation

International audienceBackground: Cognitive impairment is a dreaded complication of sickle cell disease (SCD) that impacts quality of life, school performance and employment. In 2020, the American Society of Hematology issued a strong recommendation that clinicians supervising the care of adults with SCD conduct surveillance for cognitive impairment using simplified signaling questions (DeBaun, 2020). However, guidance on the optimal screening strategy is lacking and several available tools are biased by language and education. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was specifically designed for cognitive screening in multicultural populations (Storey, 2004). In the general elderly population, RUDAS is less biased by education than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (Naqvi, 2015). Hypothesis: In adults with SCD, performance on the RUDAS is less influenced by educational attainment when compared to the MoCA. Our primary aim was to estimate the prevalence of suspected cognitive impairment using RUDAS and MoCA in adult SCD patients. The secondary aims were to examine for the presence of educational bias and to develop mitigation strategies in case of such a bias. Methods: Study design: cross-sectional study at UMGRR clinic at Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil (France). Inclusion criteria: out-patients ≥18 years-old; all SCD phenotypes. Exclusion criteria: inability to obtain informed consent and/or follow study instructions. Intervention: Cognitive screening was performed using the RUDAS (translated to French by Philippe Desmarais), MoCA (third alternative version) and an additional visuospatial task of copying overlapping triangles (from the French BEC96 assessment). RUDAS and MoCA scores &lt;28 and &lt;26, respectively, were considered suggestive of cognitive impairment per previous studies (Basic, 2009 and Nasredinne, 2005) and patients were referred for definite neuropsychological evaluation. Survey on demographics and screening for depression and anxiety using Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) were completed by the participants. Educational attainment was scored based on the number of years of schooling for the highest completed diploma. Statistical plan: linear regression was performed to identify possible associations between RUDAS, MoCA and social determinants of health. Results: Among the first 45 consecutive adult SCD patients undergoing routine cognitive screening, the median age was 39 (range 19-67). RUDAS and MoCA scores suggestive of mild cognitive impairment were found in 33/45 (73.3%) and 29/45 (64.4%) participants, respectively. There was a strong correlation between both tests (r=0.48, p=0.001). Both RUDAS and MoCA scores increased significantly with increasing level of education (r=0.36, p=0.015 and r=0.39, p=0.007, respectively), but were not significantly influenced by the HADS score. RUDAS and MoCA test items most biased by education were visuoconstructional tasks. Tasks assessing executive functioning and language were also biased in MoCA. Substituting the 3D visuospatial task of the RUDAS by a 2D task reduced the educational bias (r=0.20, p=0.045). Adding 1 point for highest level of education £ 12 years after kindergarten did significantly mitigate the effect of education on the RUDAS but only partially for the MoCA (r=0.23, p=0.131 and r=0.30, p=0.047). Conclusions: Overall, these results suggest there is an educational bias in the neurocognitive screening of adult SCD patients using available tools such as the RUDAS and MoCA. Although RUDAS was less biased overall, visuospatial assessment remained biased. The task often considered more "culture-fair" is still subject to the impact of educational potential (Statucka, 2019). We provide different strategies to mitigate education bias when assessing with RUDAS. Thus, the RUDAS adjusted by the educational level allows to systematically identify SCD patients in need of comprehensive neurocognitive testing. Prospective validation is ongoing. Disclosures Forté: Canadian Hematology Society: Research Funding; Pfizer - Global Medical Grants: Research Funding. Soulieres:Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuo:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Bartolucci:Roche: Consultancy; Innovhem: Other; AGIOS: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Emmaus: Consultancy; Addmedica: Research Funding; Fabre Foundation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; GBT: Consultancy; ADDMEDICA: Consultancy; HEMANEXT: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy

Safety and Efficacy of Mitapivat in Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency

BACKGROUND: Pyruvate kinase deficiency is caused by mutations in PKLR and leads to congenital hemolytic anemia. Mitapivat is an oral, small-molecule allosteric activator of pyruvate kinase in red cells. METHODS: In this uncontrolled, phase 2 study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of mitapivat in 52 adults with pyruvate kinase deficiency who were not receiving red-cell transfusions. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either 50 mg or 300 mg of mitapivat twice daily for a 24-week core period; eligible patients could continue treatment in an ongoing extension phase. RESULTS: Common adverse events, including headache and insomnia, occurred at the time of drug initiation and were transient; 92% of the episodes of headache and 47% of the episodes of insomnia resolved within 7 days. The most common serious adverse events, hemolytic anemia and pharyngitis, each occurred in 2 patients (4%). A total of 26 patients (50%) had an increase of more than 1.0 g per deciliter in the hemoglobin level. Among these patients, the mean maximum increase was 3.4 g per deciliter (range, 1.1 to 5.8), and the median time until the first increase of more than 1.0 g per deciliter was 10 days (range, 7 to 187); 20 patients (77%) had an increase of more than 1.0 g per deciliter in the hemoglobin level at more than 50% of visits during the core study period, with improvement in markers of hemolysis. The response was sustained in all 19 patients remaining in the extension phase, with a median follow-up of 29 months (range, 22 to 35). Hemoglobin responses were observed only in patients who had at least one missense PKLR mutation and were associated with the red-cell pyruvate kinase protein level at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of mitapivat was associated with a rapid increase in the hemoglobin level in 50% of adults with pyruvate kinase deficiency, with a sustained response during a median follow-up of 29 months during the extension phase. Adverse effects were mainly low-grade and transient. (Funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02476916.)