{"title":"Outcome measures in hemophilia: current and future perspectives.","authors":"Silvia Benemei, Luca Boni, Giancarlo Castaman","doi":"10.1080/17474086.2024.2365929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hemophilia can detrimentally affect patients' quality of life and likelihood of survival. In the evolving landscape of therapies, the therapeutic gain of each treatment must be understood to accurately position it in the therapeutic armamentarium. Accordingly, appropriate outcomes must be measured with appropriate tools.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>Our narrative review (PubMed search for 'hemophilia AND outcome' until June 2023), provides a compendium of outcome measures used in hemophilia clinical research. To define each outcome measure's relative value and applicability, several characteristics are critically discussed.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Bleeding assessment, first annual/annualized bleeding rate, remains central in evaluating the efficacy and safety of hemophilia treatments. As modern therapies improve clinical outcomes toward zero bleeding events, this endpoint may become less sensitive to detect differences between therapeutic approaches. Technological advancements necessitate the adaptation of outcome measures to address infrequent bleeding events, age-related comorbidities, and laboratory parameters with limited comparability after different treatments. Considerable effort has been dedicated to the development of tools that comprehensively assess coagulation, such as thrombin generation assays. Patient-reported outcome measures are gaining importance although limited by their subjectivity. A definitive set of research outcome measures remains elusive. Outcomes may need to be tailored to different therapeutic interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12325,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Hematology","volume":" ","pages":"329-340"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17474086.2024.2365929","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Hemophilia can detrimentally affect patients' quality of life and likelihood of survival. In the evolving landscape of therapies, the therapeutic gain of each treatment must be understood to accurately position it in the therapeutic armamentarium. Accordingly, appropriate outcomes must be measured with appropriate tools.
Areas covered: Our narrative review (PubMed search for 'hemophilia AND outcome' until June 2023), provides a compendium of outcome measures used in hemophilia clinical research. To define each outcome measure's relative value and applicability, several characteristics are critically discussed.
Expert opinion: Bleeding assessment, first annual/annualized bleeding rate, remains central in evaluating the efficacy and safety of hemophilia treatments. As modern therapies improve clinical outcomes toward zero bleeding events, this endpoint may become less sensitive to detect differences between therapeutic approaches. Technological advancements necessitate the adaptation of outcome measures to address infrequent bleeding events, age-related comorbidities, and laboratory parameters with limited comparability after different treatments. Considerable effort has been dedicated to the development of tools that comprehensively assess coagulation, such as thrombin generation assays. Patient-reported outcome measures are gaining importance although limited by their subjectivity. A definitive set of research outcome measures remains elusive. Outcomes may need to be tailored to different therapeutic interventions.
期刊介绍:
Advanced molecular research techniques have transformed hematology in recent years. With improved understanding of hematologic diseases, we now have the opportunity to research and evaluate new biological therapies, new drugs and drug combinations, new treatment schedules and novel approaches including stem cell transplantation. We can also expect proteomics, molecular genetics and biomarker research to facilitate new diagnostic approaches and the identification of appropriate therapies. Further advances in our knowledge regarding the formation and function of blood cells and blood-forming tissues should ensue, and it will be a major challenge for hematologists to adopt these new paradigms and develop integrated strategies to define the best possible patient care. Expert Review of Hematology (1747-4086) puts these advances in context and explores how they will translate directly into clinical practice.