20 research outputs found

    Onasemnogene abeparvovec in spinal muscular atrophy: an Australian experience of safety and efficacy

    Get PDF
    First published: 16 February 2022Objective: To provide a greater understanding of the tolerability, safety and clinical outcomes of onasemnogene abeparvovec in real-world practice, in a broad population of infants with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Methods: A prospective cohort study of children with SMA treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec at Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Australia was conducted from August 2019 to November 2021. Safety outcomes included clinical and laboratory evaluations. Efficacy assessments included World Health Organisation (WHO) motor milestones, oral and swallowing abilities, and requirements for respiratory support. The implementation of a model of care for onasemnogene abeparvovec administration in health practice is described. Results: 21 children were treated (age range, 0.65–24 months; body weight range, 2.5–12.5 kg) and 19/21 (90.4%) had previous nusinersen. Transient treatment-related side effects occurred in all children; vomiting (100%), transaminitis (57%) and thrombocytopaenia (33%). Incidence of moderate/severe transaminitis was significantly greater in infants weighing ≥8 kg compared with <8 kg (p < 0.05). Duration of prednisolone following treatment was prolonged (mean 87.5 days, range 57–274 days). 16/21 (76%) children gained at least one WHO motor milestone. Stabilisation or improvement in bulbar or respiratory function was observed in 20/21 (95.2%) patients. Implementation challenges were mitigated by developing standard operating procedures and facilitating exchange of knowledge. Interpretation: This study provides real-world evidence to inform treatment decisions and guide therapeutic expectations for onasemnogene abeparvovec and combination therapy for SMA in health practice, especially for children weighing ≥8 kg receiving higher vector loads. Proactive clinical and laboratory surveillance is essential to facilitate individualised management of risks.Arlene M. D’Silva, Sandra Holland, Didu Kariyawasam, Karen Herbert, Peter Barclay, Anita Cairns, Suzanna C. MacLennan, Monique M. Ryan, Hugo Sampaio, Nicholas Smith, Ian R. Woodcock, Eppie M. Yiu, Ian E. Alexander and Michelle A. Farra

    Definition and diagnosis of cerebral palsy in genetic studies: a systematic review

    No full text
    Aim: To conduct a systematic review of phenotypic definition and case ascertainment in published genetic studies of cerebral palsy (CP) to inform guidelines for the reporting of such studies. Method: Inclusion criteria comprised genetic studies of candidate genes, with CP as the outcome, published between 1990 and 2019 in the PubMed, Embase, and BIOSIS Citation Index databases. Results: Fifty‐seven studies met the inclusion criteria. We appraised how CP was defined, the quality of information on case ascertainment, and compliance with international consensus guidelines. Seven studies (12%) were poorly described, 33 studies (58%) gave incomplete information, and 17 studies (30%) were well described. Missing key information precluded determining how many studies complied with the definition by Rosenbaum et al. Only 18 out of 57 studies (32%) were compliant with the Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe (SCPE) international guidelines on defining CP. Interpretation: Limited compliance with international consensus guidelines on phenotypic definition and mediocre reporting of CP case ascertainment hinders the comparison of results among genetic studies of CP (including meta‐analyses), thereby limiting the quality, interpretability, and generalizability of study findings. Compliance with the SCPE guidelines is important for ongoing gene discovery efforts in CP, given the potential for misclassification of unrelated neurological conditions as CP.Ryan Pham, Ben W Mol, Jozef Gecz, Alastair H Maclennan, Suzanna C Maclennan, Mark A Corbett, Clare L Van Eyk, Dani L Webber, Lyle J Palmer, Jesia G Berr

    Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins:results from the comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial

    No full text
    Primary outcome measures: Disease-specific [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ)] and generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form questionnaire-36 items (SF-36) physical and mental component scores] quality of life (QoL) at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcome measures: Quality of life at 6 weeks; residual varicose veins; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); complication rates; return to normal activity; truncal vein ablation rates; and costs. Results: The results appear generalisable in that participants’ baseline characteristics (apart from a lower-than-expected proportion of females) and post-treatment improvement in outcomes were comparable with those in other RCTs. The health gain achieved in the AVVQ with foam was significantly lower than with surgery at 6 months [effect size -1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -0.50; p = 0.006], but was similar to that achieved with EVLA. The health gain in SF-36 mental component score for foam was worse than that for EVLA (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.06; p = 0.048) but similar to that for surgery. There were no differences in EQ-5D or SF-36 component scores in the surgery versus foam or surgery versus EVLA comparisons at 6 months. The trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, at 6 months, foam had the highest probability of being considered cost-effective at a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 per QALY. EVLA was found to cost £26,107 per QALY gained versus foam, and was less costly and generated slightly more QALYs than surgery. Markov modelling using trial costs and the limited recurrence data available suggested that, at 5 years, EVLA had the highest probability (≈ 79%) of being cost-effective at conventional thresholds, followed by foam (≈ 17%) and surgery (≈5%). With regard to secondary outcomes, health gains at 6 weeks (
    corecore