Implantable venous access device associated complications in patients with hereditary angioedema

Reviewing clinical considerations and guideline recommendations of C1 inhibitor prophylaxis for hereditary angioedema

BACKGROUND

Hereditary angioedema (HAE), a rare disease that is characterized by painful and recurring non-allergic swelling episodes, is caused by the deficiency or dysfunction of C1 inhibitor (C1INH) protein. A comprehensive HAE management plan may require long-term prophylaxis (LTP) in addition to on-demand treatment to help "normalize" patients' lives so that they may fully engage in work, school, family, and leisure activities.

AIM

The main objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of updated guideline recommendations specific to LTP of HAE and discuss clinical considerations and pharmacologic management options, with a focus on C1INH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed relevant HAE literature for current recommendations regarding LTP and the role of C1NH.

RESULTS

Acute HAE attacks are treated with on-demand medication; however, there is a consensus that LTP should routinely be considered for risk reduction and prevention of future episodes. The 2017 World Allergy Organization/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines recommend that all patients with HAE be evaluated for LTP routinely and the 2020 HAE Association (HAEA) guidelines emphasize that the decision to use LTP should not be based on rigid criteria, but rather should be based on individual patient needs. Both guidelines recommend C1INH as first-line/preferred therapy for LTP in a range of patient types including adults, children/adolescents, and pregnant/lactating patients. The HAEA also recommends the kallikrein inhibitor, lanadelumab, as a first-line option for LTP. HAE pathway-specific agents for LTP have not been associated with notable safety concerns.

DISCUSSION

Plasma-derived C1INH has been available for 40+ years in Europe and impacts multiple targets within the HAE pathway. C1INH has been used for on-demand treatment and LTP. A subcutaneous formulation of plasma-derived C1INH is approved for LTP and produces functional C1INH activity levels consistently above the threshold needed for protection from HAE attacks. Other pathway-specific options for LTP include the plasma kallikrein inhibitors, lanadelumab-flyo and berotralstat, approved for adults and pediatric patients aged ≥12 years. C1INH is approved for adults and pediatric patients aged ≥6 years.

CONCLUSION

Assessing the need for LTP is vital in the ongoing dialogue between clinicians and patients, as both disease-related factors and patient preferences may change over time. Among available options for LTP, plasma-derived C1INH is the broadly recommended first-line option for LTP in patients with HAE, including pregnant/lactating women and pediatric patients (≥6 years).

Recognition and Management of Hereditary Angioedema: Best Practices for Dermatologists

Objective

The goal of this article is to discuss the importance of differentiating hereditary angioedema (HAE) from other types of angioedema, describe advances in HAE management, especially long-term prophylaxis (LTP), and offer practical recommendations for dermatologists.

Commentary

While HAE is rare, dermatologists are likely to encounter patients with this condition at some point over the course of their clinical practice due to the fact that HAE episodes typically involve subcutaneous swelling and sometimes erythema marginatum. HAE is characterized by recurrent episodes of painful and/or disabling bradykinin-mediated angioedema. Unfortunately, HAE is commonly mistaken for other conditions such as allergic and other mast cell-mediated angioedema, but has very different treatment requirements. Delayed diagnosis of HAE can result in years of avoidable debilitating symptoms, inappropriate treatment, potentially unnecessary invasive intervention, and reduced quality of life, and can be life threatening. Thus, timely identification of HAE is essential to ensure appropriate clinical management. Patients with HAE have either deficiency or dysfunction of the C1 inhibitor (C1INH) protein that inhibits proteases in the contact, complement, and fibrinolytic systems. Pathway-specific HAE treatments include C1INH replacement, kallikrein inhibitors, and bradykinin receptor antagonists. Treatment options for managing acute attacks include C1INH replacement (plasma-derived or recombinant formulations), icatibant (kallikrein inhibitor), and ecallantide (bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist). In the past 5 years, several new options for LTP have been approved, including a subcutaneous plasma-derived C1INH formulation and two kallikrein inhibitors (lanadelumab; berotralstat). Optimal management of HAE entails the creation of a comprehensive management plan that addresses both acute and long-term patient needs and includes input from an HAE expert and the patient/caregivers.

The importance of recognizing and managing a rare form of angioedema: hereditary angioedema due to C1-inhibitor deficiency

The majority of angioedema cases encountered in clinical practice are histamine-mediated (allergic); however, some cases are bradykinin-related (non-allergic) and do not respond to standard anti-allergy medications. Among bradykinin-related angioedema, hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare, but chronic and debilitating condition. The majority of HAE is caused by deficiency (type 1) or abnormal function (type 2) of the naturally occurring protein, C1-inhibitor (C1-INH)-a major inhibitor of proteases in the contact (kallikrein-bradykinin cascade), fibrinolytic pathway, and complement systems. Failure to recognize HAE and initiate appropriate intervention can lead to years of pain, disability, impaired quality of life (QoL) and, in cases of laryngeal involvement, it can be life-threatening. HAE must be considered in the differential diagnosis of non-urticarial angioedema, particularly for patients with a history of recurrent angioedema attacks, family history of HAE, symptom onset in childhood/adolescence, prodromal signs/symptoms before swellings, recurrent/painful abdominal symptoms, and upper airway edema. Management strategies for HAE include on-demand treatment for acute attacks, short-term prophylaxis prior to attack-triggering events/procedures, and long-term or routine prophylaxis for attack prevention. Patients should be evaluated at least annually to assess need for routine prophylaxis. HAE specific medications like plasma-derived and recombinant C1-INH products, kallikrein inhibitors, and bradykinin B2 receptor antagonists, have improved management of HAE. While the introduction of intravenous C1-INH represented a major breakthrough in routine HAE prophylaxis, some patients fail to achieve adequate control and others have psychological barriers or experience complications related to intravenous administration. Subcutaneous (SC) C1-INH, SC monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based therapies, and an oral kallikrein inhibitor offer effective alternatives for HAE attack prevention and may facilitate self-administration. HAE management should be individualized, with QoL improvement being a key goal. This can be achieved with broader availability of existing options for routine prophylaxis, including greater global availability of C1-INH(SC), mAb-based therapy, oral treatments, and multiple on-demand therapies.

Angioedema with severe acute abdominal pain: Think of hereditary angioedema

Angioedema can be either mast cell-(histamine-)mediated or bradykinin-mediated. Treatment approaches for the two types are very different, making differential diagnosis critical. Severe acute abdominal pain caused by intestinal angioedema is commonly misdiagnosed, especially when associated with bradykinin-mediated angioedema. After describing a typical clinical scenario and diagnostic journey of a patient with recurrent, undiagnosed abdominal pain due to hereditary angioedema (HAE), a rare variant of bradykinin-mediated angioedema, we delve into the classification and differential diagnosis of the various types of angioedema and provide an overview of appropriate management with an emphasis on the bradykinin-mediated types. Bradykinin-induced angioedema may be inherited or acquired and is infrequent compared to mast cell-mediated angioedema. HAE is a rare disease characterized by recurrent attacks of non-urticarial, nonpruritic edema usually affecting the face, respiratory tract, extremities, gastrointestinal tract, and genitalia. Unlike mast cell-mediated angioedema, painful abdominal symptoms are prevalent in bradykinin-mediated angioedema and are sometimes the only manifestation of an attack, increasing the likelihood of initial misdiagnosis as appendicitis or other forms of acute abdomen. It is important for gastroenterologists to be vigilant for the possibility of angioedema pathology in patients presenting with undiagnosed, recurrent, abdominal symptoms to facilitate accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.

Advances in Hereditary Angioedema: The Prevention of Angioedema Attacks With Subcutaneous C1-Inhibitor Replacement Therapy

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a debilitating condition caused by a functional C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency and characterized clinically by episodes of subcutaneous or submucosal swelling. C1-INH replacement is highly effective for preventing HAE attacks and can improve health-related quality of life. Once available only for intravenous use, C1-INH is now available as a subcutaneous formulation for self-administration, shown to provide sustained plasma levels of C1-INH and reducing the monthly median HAE attack rate by 95% versus placebo in the phase 3 COMPACT study. Subcutaneously administered C1-INH satisfies multiple unmet needs in the management of patients with HAE.

US HAEA Medical Advisory Board 2020 Guidelines for the Management of Hereditary Angioedema

Scientific and clinical progress together with the development of effective novel therapeutic options has engendered multiple important changes in the diagnosis and management of hereditary angioedema (HAE). We now update and extend the 2013 United States Hereditary Angioedema Association Medical Advisory Board guidelines for the treatment and management of HAE. The guidelines are based on a comprehensive literature review with recommendations indicating both the strength of our recommendation and the quality of the underlying evidence. Guidelines are provided regarding the classification, diagnosis, on-demand treatment, prophylactic treatment, special considerations for women and children, development of a comprehensive management and monitoring plan, and assessment of burden of illness for both HAE due to C1 inhibitor deficiency and HAE with normal C1 inhibitor. Advances in HAE treatment now allow the development of management plans that can help many patients with HAE lead a normal life. Achieving this goal requires that physicians be familiar with the diagnostic and therapeutic transformations that have occurred in recent years.

Indirect comparison of intravenous vs. subcutaneous C1-inhibitor placebo-controlled trials for routine prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks

Introduction

For prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks, replacement therapy with human C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) treatment is approved and available as intravenous [C1-INH(IV)] (Cinryze^®) and subcutaneous [C1-INH(SC)] HAEGARDA^® preparations. In the absence of a head-to-head comparative study of the two treatment modalities, an indirect comparison of data from 2 independent but similar clinical trials was undertaken.

Methods

Two similar randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies were identified which evaluated either C1-INH(SC) (COMPACT; NCT01912456; 16 weeks) or C1-INH(IV) (CHANGE; NCT01005888; 14 weeks) vs. placebo (on-demand treatment only) for routine prevention of HAE attacks. Individual patient data from each trial were used to conduct an indirect comparison of treatment effects. Attack reductions (absolute and percent of mean/median number of monthly HAE attacks reduction over placebo) were compared between the two C1-INH formulations at approved/recommended doses: C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg twice weekly (n = 45) and 1000 U of C1-INH(IV) twice weekly (n = 22). Point estimates were adjusted using mixed and quantile regression models that controlled for study design.

Results

The absolute mean monthly numbers of HAE attack reductions were 3.6 (95% CI 2.9, 4.2) for C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg vs. placebo and 2.3 (1.4, 3.3) for C1-INH(IV) vs. placebo; between-product difference, 1.3 (0.1, 2.4; P = 0.034). The mean percent reduction in monthly attack rate was significantly greater with C1-INH(SC) as compared with C1-INH(IV) (84% vs. 51%; P < 0.001). The percentages of subjects experiencing ≥ 50%, ≥ 70%, and ≥ 90% reductions in monthly HAE attack rates versus placebo were significantly higher with C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg as compared to C1-INH(IV) 1000 U (≥ 50% reduction: 91% vs. 50%, odds ratio [OR] = 10.33, P = 0.003; ≥ 70% reduction: 84% vs. 46%, OR = 6.19, P = 0.005; ≥ 90% reduction: 57% vs. 18%, OR = 6.04, P = 0.007).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of an indirect study comparison, this analysis suggests greater attack reduction with twice-weekly C1-INH(SC) 60 IU/kg as compared to twice-weekly C1-INH(IV) 1000 U for the routine prevention of HAE attacks.

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among patients with hereditary angioedema in the United States

BACKGROUND

Real-world data on usage and associated outcomes with hereditary angioedema (HAE)-specific medications introduced to the United States (US) market since 2009 are very limited. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate real-world treatment patterns of HAE-specific medications in the US and to assess their impact on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This analysis used IMS PharMetrics PlusTM database records (2006-2014) of patients with HAE, ≥1 insurance claim for an HAE-specific medication, and continuous insurance enrollment for ≥3 months following the first HAE prescription claim.

RESULTS

Of 631 total patients, 434 (68.8%) reported C1-INH(IV) use; 396 (62.8%) reported using ecallantide and/or icatibant. There were 306 episodes of prophylactic use of C1-INH(IV) (defined by continuous refills averaging ≥1500 IU/week for ≥13 weeks) in 155 patients; use of ≥1 on-demand rescue medication was implicated during 53% (163/306) of those episodes. Sixty-eight (20.2%) of 336 C1-INH(IV) users eligible for the HCRU analysis were hospitalized at least once, and 191 (56.8%) visited the emergency department (ED). Eighteen patients (5.4%) had a central venous access device (CVAD); of these, 5 (27.7%) required hospitalization and 14 (77.7%) had an ED visit. The adjusted relative risk of hospitalization and/or ED visits for patients with a CVAD was 2.6 (95% CI: 0.17, 39.23) compared to C1-INH(IV) users without a CVAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread availability of modern HAE medications in the US, we identified a subset of patients requiring long-term prophylaxis who continue to be burdened by frequent rescue medication usage and/or complications related to the use of CVADs for intravenous HAE medication.

Long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency

OBJECTIVE

To review the criteria for long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE), describe how these criteria have evolved over time, and anticipate how criteria may change in the future with the availability of new C1-INH-HAE treatment options.

DATA SOURCES

Treatment guidelines, consensus statements, and expert reviews.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Manuscripts that described long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with C1-INH-HAE were selected.

RESULTS

Historically, patients with C1-INH-HAE were considered to be candidates for long-term prophylaxis therapy if they had at least 1 attack per month, had at least 5 days of disability per month because of C1-INH-HAE, or did not sufficiently respond to on-demand treatment. More recently, guidelines and reviews state that thresholds of number of attacks or days of disability are arbitrary and that treatment plans should be individualized to the patient's needs. Furthermore, all patients should have a comprehensive management plan that is reviewed periodically and should have at least 2 doses of on-demand treatment available. Prophylaxis therapy should be discussed as a potential treatment option for each patient; however, the decision for its use will depend on the patient's individual needs and the course of their symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The criteria for long-term prophylaxis therapy in C1-INH-HAE have changed with the recognition that treatments should be individualized to the patient's needs and with the availability of new medications that have more favorable benefit-risk profiles, are easier to use, and improve patients' quality of life.

Patient satisfaction and experience with intravenously administered C1-inhibitor concentrates in the United States

BACKGROUND

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder with substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite expanded choices for effective acute treatment, prophylactic options are more limited. Intravenous C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH[IV]) is licensed and used to prevent HAE symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand patient experiences with using C1-INH(IV), including level of satisfaction and types and frequency of complications.

METHODS

Fifty adult members (≥18 years of age) of the US HAE Association who had HAE type I or II completed a self-administered internet survey. Eligible participants were experiencing at least 1 HAE attack per month and must have been receiving treatment with C1-INH(IV) as prophylaxis or acute therapy.

RESULTS

Almost all respondents (n = 47; 94%) were using C1-INH(IV) for HAE prophylaxis. Most patients reported administration of C1-INH(IV) through a peripheral vein (n = 34) and 19 were currently (n = 17) or previously (n = 2) using a central venous port. Most respondents (62%) who used a peripheral vein to administer treatment reported having difficulty finding a usable vein or getting the infusion to work properly at least some of the time. Issues accessing veins, exhausted veins, and frequency of attacks were the main reasons physicians recommended ports to respondents. Although ports allow easier administration of therapy, 47% of respondents with ports experienced problems such as occlusion, thrombosis, and infection. Respondents using C1-INH prophylaxis reported a mean of 2.3 attacks per month during the previous 6 months.

CONCLUSION

The survey results identified clinical challenges with IV HAE medication use, including venous access issues and ongoing monthly attack occurrence despite prophylactic C1-INH(IV) administration.

US Hereditary Angioedema Association Medical Advisory Board 2013 recommendations for the management of hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency

BACKGROUND

The treatment of hereditary angioedema (HAE) has undergone dramatic changes as newer medicines have become available in recent years. Optimal care of these patients requires a comprehensive management plan. Although several consensus papers have been published concerning the diagnosis and treatment of HAE, guidelines for a comprehensive management plan have not been developed.

OBJECTIVE

To develop state-of-the-art recommendations for the treatment and management of HAE due to C1 inhibitor (C1INH) deficiency in the United States.

METHODS

Members of the US Hereditary Angioedema Association Medical Advisory Board began by reviewing the literature concerning treatment of HAE. Preliminary recommendations were developed based on the literature review, discussions in a face-to-face meeting, and refinements in a series of drafts. Final recommendations reflect the unanimous consensus of the medical advisory board and the US Hereditary Angioedema Association leadership.

RESULTS

Recommendations are provided regarding a comprehensive care plan for HAE, including the following: development of an overall management plan, treatment of angioedema attacks, prophylactic treatment, and patient monitoring.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive individualized management plan developed between an expert HAE physician and the patient, in collaboration with local medical providers and emergency departments, can provide patients with the best opportunity to lead a normal life.