Acceptability of prenatal diagnosis and prenatal treatment of haemophilia using cell and gene therapies within US haemophilia community

Background

The overall burden of disease in persons with haemophilia continues to be high despite the latest advancements in therapeutics. Clinical trials testing prenatal treatments for several genetic disorders are underway or are recruiting subjects, attesting to the much-needed change in paradigm of how patients with monogenic disorders can be treated. Here we investigate the overall attitude towards prenatal diagnosis, preferences on types of prenatal therapies for haemophilia, the level of 'acceptable' risk tolerated, and which social and moral pressures or disease personal experiences may predict willingness of individuals to consider foetal therapy in a future pregnancy.

Results

A multidisciplinary team designed the survey, and the study was carried out using REDCap, and publicized through the National Haemophilia Foundation. Subjects ≥18 years of age were eligible to participate in the study. We assessed participants’ attitudes towards prenatal therapy and their level of 'acceptable' risk towards the procedure and therapy. The survey was completed by 67 adults, the majority females. Respondents were willing to undergo prenatal diagnosis, and their main concerns related to the well-being of the pregnant woman and the foetus regarding lasting therapeutic efficacy, side effects of the therapy, and procedural risks, but they were likely to accept a wide range of prenatal therapeutic options, particularly if the foetal therapy proved to be long-lasting and safe.

Conclusions

These data demonstrate the willingness of persons with haemophilia, and the haemophilia community, to explore new treatment options beyond the currently offered approaches.     

Antipsychotics and obsessive–compulsive disorder/obsessive–compulsive symptoms: A pharmacovigilance study of the FDA adverse event reporting system

Objective

Antipsychotics have conflicting data with respect to obsessive–compulsive disorder/symptoms (OCD/OCS), with some reporting causality and some reporting treatment benefits. This pharmacovigilance study aimed to investigate reporting of OCD/OCS in association with the use of antipsychotics in comparison to one another, as well as treatment failure using data derived from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

Methods

Data from January 1st, 2010 to December 31st, 2020 on suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) including OCD/OCS was obtained. The information component (IC) was used to determine a disproportionality signal, and reporting odds ratio (ROR) calculations were performed via intra-class analyses to discern differences between the evaluated antipsychotics.

Results

A total of 1454 OCD/OCS cases were utilized in IC and ROR calculations and 385,972 suspected ADRs were used as non-cases. A significant disproportionality signal was seen with all second generation antipsychotics. Relative to other antipsychotics, only aripiprazole had a significant ROR of 23.87 (95% CI: 21.01–27.13; p < 0.0001). The ROR for antipsychotic treatment failure in those with OCD/OCS was highest with aripiprazole, and lowest with risperidone and quetiapine. Sensitivity analyses were largely in favor of the primary findings. Our analysis appears to implicate the 5-HT_1A receptor or an imbalance between this receptor and the D₂-receptor in antipsychotic treatment-emergent OCD/OCS.

Conclusions

In contrast to prior reports noting clozapine as the antipsychotic most commonly associated with de novo or exacerbated OCD/OCS, this pharmacovigilance study found aripiprazole was most frequently reported for this adverse effect. While these findings from FAERS offer a unique perspective on OCD/OCS with different antipsychotic agents, due to the inherent limitations of pharmacovigilance studies they should ideally be validated through alternative prospective research studies involving direct comparisons of antipsychotic agents.