ReviewAdvances in therapy2025
Impact of Different Definitions of Vaso-Occlusion on Efficacy Assessments in Sickle Cell Disease Clinical Trials.
Review in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and effectiveness of voxelotor in individuals with sickle cell disease in the RETRO and PROSPECT US registries.Blood advances · 2026Observational
- Curative Therapies for Hemophilias and Hemoglobinopathies in Adults: Immune, Gene, and Stem Cell Approaches in a Global Context.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Drug development for sickle cell disease: repeated setbacks, yet there remains an optimistic outlook for future breakthroughs.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with sickle cell disease (SCD) experience recurrent, severe pain events due to vaso-occlusion. Eliminating these acute pain events is a key outcome in SCD clinical trials; however, the definition of a vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) or a vaso-occlusive event (VOE) has not been consistently applied, hampering comparisons of treatment efficacy between different therapeutic approaches. We have examined the degree to which differing definitions of vaso-occlusion in clinical trial endpoints impact efficacy outcomes.
methodsDescriptions of clinical endpoints related to vaso-occlusion and pain events were reviewed from trials of exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel), lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), renizgamglogene autogedtemcel (reni-cel), hydroxyurea, L-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab. Patient-level data from the published exa-cel Phase 3 pivotal trial (CLIMB SCD-121; data cut 14 Jun 2023) was used to evaluate efficacy outcomes based on differing endpoint definitions of vaso-occlusion.
resultsIn the seven clinical trials reviewed, definitions of vaso-occlusion and/or pain events varied by care setting, duration of care, treatments used, and associated complications, with the frequency and duration of medical facility visits for acute pain events being most dissimilar between trials. Definitions of severe VOCs (exa-cel), VOC (voxelotor), and sickle cell-related pain crises (SCPCs; crizanlizumab and L-glutamine) included pain events requiring a medical facility visit of any duration, whereas the definition of painful crises (hydroxyurea) required a medical facility visit of > 4 h and the definition of severe vaso-occlusive events (VOEs; lovo-cel and reni-cel) required a hospital or emergency room (ER) observation unit visit lasting ≥ 24 h or ≥ 2 visits to a day unit or ER over a 72-h period. Based on the definition of severe VOCs, 29/30 patients [96.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 82.8, 99.9] in the CLIMB SCD-121 trial were considered free from severe VOCs for ≥ 12 consecutive months, whereas when the severe VOEs definition was applied to the same data, all patients (30/30; 100.0%; 95% CI: 88.4, 100.0) were considered free from severe VOEs for ≥ 12 consecutive months.
conclusionDifferences exist in definitions of vaso-occlusion and pain events used in SCD clinical trials. Severe VOCs (exa-cel), VOC (voxelotor), and SCPCs (crizanlizumab and L-glutamine) were more broadly inclusive than severe VOEs (lovo-cel and reni-cel) or painful crisis (hydroxyurea). Clinically, these differences resulted in differing numbers of patients being considered free from vaso-occlusion pain events, underscoring the challenge in comparing frequencies of pain events across SCD clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.