Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: research priorities for mucocutaneous bleeding disorders

BACKGROUND: Excessive or abnormal mucocutaneous bleeding (MCB) may impact all aspects of the physical and psychosocial wellbeing of those who live with it (PWMCB). The evidence base for the optimal diagnosis and management of disorders such as inherited platelet disorders, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD), Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS), and von Willebrand disease (VWD) remains thin with enormous potential for targeted research. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: National Hemophilia Foundation and American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network initiated the development of a National Research Blueprint for Inherited Bleeding Disorders with extensive all-stakeholder consultations to identify the priorities of people with inherited bleeding disorders and those who care for them. They recruited multidisciplinary expert working groups (WG) to distill community-identified priorities into concrete research questions and score their feasibility, impact, and risk. RESULTS: WG2 detailed 38 high priority research questions concerning the biology of MCB, VWD, inherited qualitative platelet function defects, HDS/EDS, HHT, bleeding disorder of unknown cause, novel therapeutics, and aging. CONCLUSIONS: Improving our understanding of the basic biology of MCB, large cohort longitudinal natural history studies, collaboration, and creative approaches to novel therapeutics will be important in maximizing the benefit of future research for the entire MCB community

Phase 1-2a multicenter dose-escalation study of ezatiostat hydrochloride liposomes for injection (Telintra®, TLK199), a novel glutathione analog prodrug in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ezatiostat hydrochloride liposomes for injection, a glutathione S-transferase P1-1 inhibitor, was evaluated in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The objectives were to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and hematologic improvement (HI) rate. Phase 1-2a testing of ezatiostat for the treatment of MDS was conducted in a multidose-escalation, multicenter study. Phase 1 patients received ezatiostat at 5 dose levels (50, 100, 200, 400 and 600 mg/m²) intravenously (IV) on days 1 to 5 of a 14-day cycle until MDS progression or unacceptable toxicity. In phase 2, ezatiostat was administered on 2 dose schedules: 600 mg/m²IV on days 1 to 5 or days 1 to 3 of a 21-day treatment cycle.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>54 patients with histologically confirmed MDS were enrolled. The most common adverse events were grade 1 or 2, respectively, chills (11%, 9%), back pain (15%, 2%), flushing (19%, 0%), nausea (15%, 0%), bone pain (6%, 6%), fatigue (0%, 13%), extremity pain (7%, 4%), dyspnea (9%, 4%), and diarrhea (7%, 4%) related to acute infusional hypersensitivity reactions. The concentration of the primary active metabolites increased proportionate to ezatiostat dosage. Trilineage responses were observed in 4 of 16 patients (25%) with trilineage cytopenia. Hematologic Improvement-Erythroid (HI-E) was observed in 9 of 38 patients (24%), HI-Neutrophil in 11 of 26 patients (42%) and HI-Platelet in 12 of 24 patients (50%). These responses were accompanied by improvement in clinical symptoms and reductions in transfusion requirements. Improvement in bone marrow maturation and cellularity was also observed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Phase 2 studies of ezatiostat hydrochloride liposomes for injection in MDS are supported by the tolerability and HI responses observed. An oral formulation of ezatiostat hydrochloride tablets is also in phase 2 clinical development.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00035867</p

Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced.</p> <p>Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.</p