Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare, autosomal dominant disorder characterized by recurrent acute attacks of swelling of the larynx, abdomen, and periphery. This study was designed to assess the humanistic burden of illness associated with HAE. HAE burden was assessed via a web-based survey of patients that solicited information on attack characterization, treatment, side effects, pain, and functional and emotional burden of disease management. In addition to HAE-specific sections, the survey used three standardized instruments to compare HAE patient data to normative (healthy) and chronic disease populations: the 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health (WPAI-GH) questionnaire, and the Hamilton Depression Inventory-Short Form (HDI-SF). A total of 457 HAE patients responded to the survey (response rate, ∼19%). Patients reported significantly poorer health-related quality of life versus population norms, based on the SF-12 Physical Component Summary (mean, 43.7 versus 49.6; p < 0.001) and Mental Component Summary (mean, 42.6 versus 49.4; p < 0.001). HAE patients also had higher mean HDI-SF scores than population norms (8.1 ± 6.5 versus 3.1 ± 3.0; p < 0.001), with 42.5% of HAE patients scoring >8.5, indicative of depressive symptomatology. Productivity was also markedly impaired in all WPAI-GH categories, including 34% overall work impairment. Because of their most recent HAE attack, workers lost a mean of 3.3 days; students lost a mean of 1.9 days. HAE results in considerable humanistic burden to patients across physical and mental health domains; negatively impacts education, career, and work productivity; and compounds the substantial economic burdens that are reported separately.
Four hours after administration of ecallantide or placebo for acute attacks of angioedema in patients with hereditary angioedema, patient-reported treatment outcome scores and mean symptom complex severity scores were significantly better with ecallantide than with placebo. (Funded by Dyax; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262080.)
f Eravacycline is a novel fluorocycline, highly active against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens in vitro, including those with tetracycline and multidrug resistance. This phase 2, randomized, double-blind study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dose regimens of eravacycline compared with ertapenem in adult hospitalized patients with complicated intraabdominal infections (cIAIs). Patients with confirmed cIAI requiring surgical or percutaneous intervention and antibacterial therapy were randomized (2:2:1) to receive eravacycline at 1.5 mg/kg of body weight every 24 h (q24h), eravacycline at 1.0 mg/kg every 12 h (q12h), or ertapenem at 1 g (q24h) for a minimum of 4 days and a maximum of 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical response in microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit 10 to 14 days after the last dose of study drug therapy. Overall, 53 patients received eravacycline at 1.5 mg/kg q24h, 56 received eravacycline at 1.0 mg/kg q12h, and 30 received ertapenem. For the ME population, the clinical success rate at the TOC visit was 92.9% (39/42) in the group receiving eravacycline at 1.5 mg/kg q24h, 100% (41/41) in the group receiving eravacycline at 1.0 mg/kg q12h, and 92.3% (24/26) in the ertapenem group. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were 35.8%, 28.6%, and 26.7%, respectively. Incidence rates of nausea and vomiting were low in both eravacycline groups. Both dose regimens of eravacycline were as efficacious as the comparator, ertapenem, in patients with cIAI and were well tolerated. These results support the continued development of eravacycline for the treatment of serious infections, including those caused by drug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01265784.)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.