Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Leng LK, Pancharoen C, Bunupuradah T, Thisyakorn U, Trinavarat P, Sosothikul D, et al.
    J Med Assoc Thai, 2007 Sep;90(9):1937-42.
    PMID: 17957942
    This report documents a case of infiltrating cervical spinal mass, most likely a spinal tumor, in a girl with HIV infection that regressed following HAART and without treatment of the tumor or any anti-infectives.
  2. Chandrasekaran R, Dávoli M, Muda Z, Pérez-Lozano U, Salhi N, Saxena N, et al.
    BMC Res Notes, 2023 Nov 10;16(1):327.
    PMID: 37950292 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-023-06552-3
    OBJECTIVE: Haemophilia A (HA) is associated with high clinical and healthcare burden. We developed an Excel-based model comparing current practice to improved management in severe HA patients currently managed on demand (OD). Outcomes included short- and long-term bleed events. Expected annual bleeds were estimated based on locally-derived OD annualised bleed rate (ABR), adjusted by relative prophylaxis-related ABRs (published literature). The objective of our study was to explore the impact of improving HA prophylaxis in target countries with limited published data (Algeria, Argentina, Chile, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan and Thailand). Bleed-related healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs were estimated as a function of bleed type, with inputs obtained from local expert estimates. Clotting factor concentrates (CFC) consumption related to treatment and prophylaxis was estimated based on locally relevant dosing. CFC costs were not included.

    RESULTS: When 20% of OD patients were switched to prophylaxis, projected reduction in bleeds was estimated between 3% (Taiwan) through 14% (Algeria and India); projected reductions in hospitalisations ranged from 3% (Taiwan) through 15% (India). Projected HCRU-related annual cost savings were estimated at USD 0.45 m (Algeria), 0.77 m (Argentina), 0.28 m (Chile), 0.13 m (India), 0.29 m (Malaysia), 2.79 m (Mexico), 0.15 m (Taiwan) and 0.78 m (Thailand). Net change in annual CFC consumption ranged from a 0.05% reduction (Thailand) to an overall 5.4% increase (Algeria). Our model provides a flexible framework to estimate the clinical and cost offsets of improved prophylaxis. Modest increase in CFC consumption may be an acceptable offset for improvements in health and healthcare capacity in resource constrained economies.

  3. Sidonio RF, Thompson AA, Peyvandi F, Stasyshyn O, Yeoh SL, Sosothikul D, et al.
    Expert Rev Hematol, 2023;16(10):793-801.
    PMID: 37646148 DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2023.2247160
    AIM: To determine the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of rurioctocog alfa pegol in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A (HA).

    METHODS: This prospective, phase 3 study (NCT02615691) was conducted in PUPs, or patients with ≤2 exposure days (EDs) prior to screening, aged <6 years with severe HA. The primary endpoint was incidence of factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitor development. This protocol-specified interim analysis was conducted after 50 patients had completed ≥50 EDs without developing FVIII inhibitors or had developed a confirmed inhibitor at any time.

    RESULTS: Of the enrolled patients, 59/80 (73.8%) received ≥1 dose of rurioctocog alfa pegol; 54 received prophylaxis, and 35 on-demand treatment. Incidence of inhibitor development was 0.19 (10/52). Total annualized bleeding rate (95% CIs) was 3.2 (2.0-5.0) for patients receiving prophylaxis and 3.2 (1.6-6.3) for on-demand treatment. Hemostatic efficacy of most bleedings was rated as 'excellent' or 'good' after 24 hours (122/131 [93.1%]) and at resolution (161/170 [94.7%]). Five patients received ≥1 dose of rurioctocog alfa pegol for immune tolerance induction (ITI) and 1 patient was defined as having ITI success. Thirteen patients experienced 14 treatment-related adverse events, including 10 cases of FVIII inhibitor development.

    CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective study of rurioctocog alfa pegol for the treatment of PUPs with severe HA.

    TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT02615691).

  4. Angchaisuksiri P, Amurao-Abiera M, Chou SC, Chewcharat P, Chozie NA, Gomez R, et al.
    Haemophilia, 2024 Mar 24.
    PMID: 38523289 DOI: 10.1111/hae.14998
    BACKGROUND: The healthcare systems in Asia vary greatly due to the socio-economic and cultural diversities which impact haemophilia management.

    METHODS: An advisory board meeting was conducted with experts in haemophilia care from Asia to understand the heterogeneity in clinical practices and care provision in the region.

    FINDINGS: The overall prevalence of haemophilia in Asia ranges between 3 and 8.58/100,000 patients. Haemophilia A was more prevalent as compared to haemophilia B with a ratio of around 5:1. There is under-diagnosis in the region due to lack of diagnosis, registries and/or lack of appropriate facilities in suburban areas. Most patients are referred to the haematologists by their families or primary care physicians, while some are identified during bleeding episodes. Genetic testing faces obstacles like resource constraints, services available at limited centres and unwillingness of patients to participate. Prophylaxis is offered for people with haemophilia (PWH) with a severe bleeding phenotype. Recombinant factors are approved in most countries across the region and are the preferred therapy. The challenges highlighted for not receiving a high standard of care include patients' reluctance to use an intravenous treatment, poor patient compliance due to frequency of infusions, budget constraints and lack of funding, insurance, availability and accessibility of factor concentrates. Prevalence of neutralizing antibodies ranged from 5% to 20% in the region. Use of immune tolerance induction and bypassing agents to treat inhibitors depends on their cost and availability.

    CONCLUSION: Haemophilia care in Asia has evolved to a great extent. However, some challenges remain for which a strategic approach along with multi-stakeholder involvement are needed.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links