Search

Abstract: Etavopivat is an investigational, once daily, oral, selective erythrocyte pyruvate kinase (PKR) activator. A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 3-part, phase 1 study was conducted to characterize the safety and clinical activity of etavopivat. Thirty-six patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) were enrolled into 4 cohorts: 1 single-dose, 2 multiple ascending doses, and 1 open-label (OL). In the OL cohort, 15 patients (median age 33.0 years [range, 17-55]) received 400 mg etavopivat once daily for 12 weeks; 14 patients completed treatment. Consistent with the mechanism of PKR activation, increases in adenosine triphosphate and decreases in 2,3-diphosphoglycerate were observed and sustained over 12 weeks' treatment. This translated clinically to an increase in hemoglobin (Hb; mean maximal increase 1.6 g/dL [range, 0.8-2.8]), with >1 g/dL increase in 11 (73%) patients during treatment. In addition, the oxygen tension at which Hb is 50% saturated was reduced (P = .0007) with a concomitant shift in point of sickling (P = .0034) to lower oxygen tension in oxygen-gradient ektacytometry. Hemolysis markers (absolute reticulocyte count, indirect bilirubin, and lactate dehydrogenase) decreased from baseline, along with matrix metalloproteinase-9 and erythropoietin. In the OL cohort, adverse events (AEs) were mostly grade 1/2, consistent with underlying SCD; 5 patients had serious AEs. Vaso-occlusive pain episode was the most common treatment-emergent AE (n = 7) in the OL cohort. In this, to our knowledge, the first study of etavopivat in SCD, 400 mg once daily for 12 weeks was well tolerated, resulting in rapid and sustained increases in Hb, improved red blood cell physiology, and decreased hemolysis. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03815695., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Chronic pain in sickle cell disease (SCD) refers to pain present on most days lasting over six months. It can start during childhood and the prevalence increases with age. By adulthood, over 55% of patients experience pain on over 50% of days; 29% reporting pain on 95% of days. The true prevalence of chronic pain in SCD is likely underappreciated as it is mostly managed at home. Patients with chronic pain and SCD frequently seek acute care for exacerbation of underlying chronic pain difficult to distinguish from their usual acute vaso-occlusive crises. When treating chronic pain in SCD, the challenge is distinguishing between non-SCD related etiologies versus chronic pain resulting from SCD pathophysiological processes. This distinction is important to delineate as it will drive appropriate management strategies. Chronic pain in SCD has profound consequences for the patient; is often associated with comorbid psychiatric illnesses (depression and anxiety), not dissimilar from other chronic pain syndromes. They may also experience challenges with sleep hygiene, various somatic symptoms, and chronic fatigue that impair quality of life. How best to treat chronic pain in SCD is not definitively established. Both acute and chronic pain in SCD is typically treated with opioids. Emerging data suggests that chronic opioid therapy (COT) is a suboptimal treatment strategy for chronic pain. This review will discuss the complexity of managing chronic pain in SCD; pain that may be dependent or independent of the underlying SCD diagnosis. We will also describe alternative treatment approaches to high-dose COT., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I.O. has consulted for Novartis, Pfizer, Cyclerion, Forma Therapeutics, Acceleron Pharma, MagellanRx; been on the speakers' bureau for Novartis, Terumo, and Global Blood Therapeutics; been on the advisory board for Novartis, Pfizer, Acceleron, Cyclerion, and Global Blood Therapeutics; received grants from Health Resources and Services Administration, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, NC State Dept. of Health and Human Services, and Data and Safety Monitoring Boards; has membership for Micella Biopharma ASH Guidelines Panel and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine SCD study committee; and is the Hematology News board editor-in-chief. E.S. is on the advisory board for FORMA therapeutics and has received Health Resources and Services Administration funding. H.F.O. declares no competing financial interests., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Attendance at professional conferences is an important component of career development, because conferences are a major forum for presenting new research, interacting with colleagues and networking. An extensive literature documents differences in the professional experiences of women and men, including experiences at professional conferences. We hypothesized that women are less likely than men to ask questions at conferences, thus forgoing opportunities for professional development. To address this issue, we analyzed the question-asking behavior of women and men at the 2019 Annual Meeting and Exposition of the American Society of Hematology. In all, 112 sessions (55% of those eligible) were randomly chosen for coding, yielding data on 577 presentations. Although approximately 50% of moderators and speakers were women, the proportion of questions asked by women was significantly lower compared with the estimated proportion of women attending the conference (23% vs 39%; P < .0001). Women were more likely to ask questions if another woman asked the first question or if the session topic was red cells. These results suggest that although women are represented equally as moderators and speakers, they are less likely to engage in the postpresentation discourse by asking questions. Encouraging women to speak up in professional situations and providing training on question-asking skills can help address this gender gap that potentially contributes to disparities in professional visibility and career advancement for women in hematology.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It is a medically and socially complex, multisystem illness that affects individuals throughout the lifespan. Given improvements in care, most children with SCD survive into adulthood. However, access to adult sickle cell care is poor in many parts of the United States, resulting in increased acute care utilization, disjointed care delivery, and early mortality for patients. A dearth of nonmalignant hematology providers, the lack of a national SCD registry, and the absence of a centralized infrastructure to facilitate comparative quality assessment compounds these issues. As part of a workshop designed to train health care professionals in the skills necessary to establish clinical centers focused on the management of adults living with SCD, we defined an SCD center, elucidated required elements of a comprehensive adult SCD center, and discussed different models of care. There are also important economic impacts of these centers at an institutional and health system level. As more clinicians are trained in providing adult-focused SCD care, center designation will enhance the ability to undertake quality improvement and compare outcomes between SCD centers. Activities will include an assessment of the clinical effectiveness of expanded access to care, the implementation of SCD guidelines, and the efficacy of newly approved targeted medications. Details of this effort are provided., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Prevention and management of end-organ disease represent major challenges facing providers of children and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD). Uncertainty and variability in the screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications in SCD lead to varying outcomes for affected individuals., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 2 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews up to September 2017. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD. Recommendations related to anticoagulation duration for adults with SCD and venous thromboembolism were also developed., Conclusions: Most recommendations were conditional due to a paucity of direct, high-quality evidence for outcomes of interest. Future research was identified, including the need for prospective studies to better understand the natural history of cardiopulmonary and renal disease, their relationship to patient-important outcomes, and optimal management., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)