Eradication of factor VIII inhibitors in patients with mild and moderate hemophilia A

Structural basis for inhibition of coagulation factor VIII reveals a shared antigenic hotspot on the C1 domain

BACKGROUND

Hemophilia A arises from dysfunctional or deficient coagulation factor (F)VIII and leads to inefficient fibrin clot formation and uncontrolled bleeding events. The development of antibody inhibitors is a clinical complication in hemophilia A patients receiving FVIII replacement therapy. LE2E9 is an anti-C1 domain inhibitor previously isolated from a mild/moderate hemophilia A patient and disrupts FVIII interactions with von Willebrand factor and FIXa, though the intermolecular contacts that underpin LE2E9-mediated FVIII neutralization are undefined.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the structure of the complex between FVIII and LE2E9 and characterize its mechanism of inhibition.

METHODS

FVIII was bound to the antigen binding fragment (Fab) of NB2E9, a recombinant construct of LE2E9, and its structure was determined by cryogenic electron microscopy.

RESULTS

This report communicates the 3.46 Å structure of FVIII bound to NB2E9, with its epitope comprising FVIII residues S2040 to Y2043, K2065 to W2070, and R2150 to H2155. Structural analysis reveals that the LE2E9 epitope overlaps with portions of the epitope for 2A9, a murine-derived inhibitor, suggesting that these residues represent a shared antigenic region on the C1 domain between FVIII-/- mice and hemophilia A patients. Furthermore, the FVIII:NB2E9 structure elucidates the orientation of the LE2E9 glycan, illustrating how the glycan sterically blocks interactions between the FVIII C1 domain and the von Willebrand factor D' domain. A putative model of the FVIIIa:FIXa complex suggests potential clashing between the NB2E9 glycan and FIXa light chain.

CONCLUSION

These results describe an antigenic "hotspot" on the FVIII C1 domain and provide a structural basis for engineering FVIII replacement therapeutics with reduced antigenicity.

Emicizumab promotes factor Xa generation on endothelial cells

BACKGROUND

Until recently, the treatment of hemophilia A relied on factor (F)VIII replacement. However, up to one-third of patients with severe hemophilia A develop neutralizing alloantibodies that render replacement therapies ineffective. The development of emicizumab, a bispecific antibody that partially mimics FVIIIa, has revolutionized the treatment of these patients. However, the use of an activated prothrombin complex concentrate [FEIBA (Takeda)] to treat breakthrough bleeding in patients on emicizumab has been associated with thrombotic complications including a unique microangiopathy.

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that the thrombotic complications observed with the combination of emicizumab and FEIBA might be due to excessive expression of procoagulant activity on the surface of endothelial cells.

METHODS

We examined the ability of emicizumab to promote FX activation on endothelial cells using 2 cell culture models.

RESULTS

We found that endothelial cells readily support emicizumab-mediated activation of FX by FIXa. The level of FXa generation depends on the concentration of available FIXa. The addition of FEIBA to emicizumab increased FXa generation in a dose-dependent manner on endothelial cells in both models. The rate of FXa generation was further enhanced by endothelial cell activation. However, unlike emicizumab, we found limited FXa generation in the presence of FVIII(a), which followed a significant lag time and was not dependent on FIXa concentration under these conditions.

CONCLUSION

Emicizumab promotes FXa generation on the surface of endothelial cells, which is markedly enhanced in the presence of FEIBA. These findings demonstrate a potential mechanism for the thrombotic complications seen with the combined use of emicizumab and FEIBA.

Prophylaxis use of clotting factor replacement products in people with non-severe haemophilia: A review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

People with non-severe haemophilia appear to be under-treated in many countries, and this may lead to joint damage and worsen quality of life.

AIM

To review literature for clotting factor replacement prophylaxis in people with non-severe haemophilia A and B (HA/HB) in relation to long-term outcomes to support clinical decision-making.

METHODS

A targeted literature search was performed to identify studies published between 2000 and 2021 that included prophylaxis in people with non-severe HA/HB and long-term outcomes, including annualized bleeding rates, joint health and quality of life.

RESULTS

Although eligible articles included 2737 and 2272 people with mild or moderate HA, respectively, only 22% (n = 609) and 29% (n = 668) reported treatment regimens. A total of 549 people with moderate HA were treated with factor replacement prophylaxis and were from high-income countries. On the contrary, nearly all people with mild HA received desmopressin (n = 599). Details of treatment regimens for women with haemophilia and people with HB were sparse. Three studies provided long-term outcomes for people with moderate haemophilia who received prophylaxis with factor concentrate, supporting early prophylaxis in people with a frequent bleeding phenotype regardless of their endogenous clotting factor level to preserve joint health.

CONCLUSION

There remain large knowledge gaps when considering how to provide optimal treatment for people with non-severe haemophilia. Nonetheless, there is a strong rationale that prophylaxis should be considered early in life according to similar strategies as for severe haemophilia for those with a frequent severe bleeding phenotype.

Immune complications and their management in inherited and acquired bleeding disorders

Disorders of coagulation, resulting in serious risks for bleeding, may be caused by autoantibody formation or by mutations in genes encoding coagulation factors. In the latter case, antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may form against the clotting factor protein drugs used in replacement therapy, as is well documented in the treatment of the X-linked disease hemophilia. Such neutralizing antibodies against factors VIII or IX substantially complicate treatment. Autoantibody formation against factor VIII leads to acquired hemophilia. Although rare, antibody formation may occur in the treatment of other clotting factor deficiencies (eg, against von Willebrand factor [VWF]). The main strategies that have emerged to address these immune responses include (1) clinical immune tolerance induction (ITI) protocols; (2) immune suppression therapies (ISTs); and (3) the development of drugs that can improve hemostasis while bypassing the antibodies against coagulation factors altogether (some of these nonfactor therapies/NFTs are antibody-based, but they are distinct from traditional immunotherapy as they do not target the immune system). Choice of immune or alternative therapy and criteria for selection of a specific regimen for inherited and autoimmune bleeding disorders are explained. ITI serves as an important proof of principle that antigen-specific immune tolerance can be achieved in humans through repeated antigen administration, even in the absence of immune suppression. Finally, novel immunotherapy approaches that are still in the preclinical phase, such as cellular (for instance, regulatory T cell [Treg]) immunotherapies, gene therapy, and oral antigen administration, are discussed.

Immune tolerance induction in the era of emicizumab - still the first choice for patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors?

INTRODUCTION

The development of inhibitory antibodies is a severe complication of clotting factor replacement therapy in patients with severe haemophilia A (HA). Current World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines for haemophilia care indicate that eradication of inhibitors is best achieved through immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy.

AIM

The European Collaborative Haemophilia Network conducted a survey to determine whether ITI is still used in the routine management of patients with HA, and whether the availability of emicizumab prophylaxis has influenced treatment decisions.

METHODS

The survey was conducted in late 2020/early 2021 in 18 centres representing 17 countries in the Europe/Middle East region treating a total of 4955 patients, and included sections specific to patient and centre demographics, treatment protocols (both ITI and prophylactic), inhibitor development and initiation of ITI, treatment success, and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

While our results indicate that ITI can still be considered a mainstay of treatment for patients with HA with inhibitors, less than daily dosing of ITI in combination with emicizumab prophylaxis is becoming commonplace across the spectrum of disease severity, with initiation being guided by bleeding patterns. The most frequently cited reasons for not initiating emicizumab prophylaxis were availability or reimbursement issues.

CONCLUSION

ITI remains a mainstay for haemophilia treatment of patients with HA with inhibitors, but emicizumab has become a preferred first-line approach to protect against bleeds and represents an alternative to burdensome ITI in certain patient groups.

Treatment-related risk factors for inhibitor development in non-severe hemophilia A after 50 cumulative exposure days: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

Non-severe hemophilia A patients have a life-long inhibitor risk. Yet, no studies have analyzed risk factors for inhibitor development after 50 factor VIII (FVIII) exposure days (EDs).

OBJECTIVES

This case-control study investigated treatment-related risk factors for inhibitor development in non-severe hemophilia A and assessed whether these risk factors were different for early versus late inhibitor development.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Non-severe hemophilia A patients (FVIII:C 2%-40%) were selected from the INSIGHT study. Inhibitor-positive patients were defined as early (<50 EDs) or late (>50EDs) cases and matched to 1-4 inhibitor-negative controls by year of birth, cumulative number of EDs, and center/country. We investigated treatment intensity during the last 10 EDs prior to inhibitor development. Intensive treatment was defined as: surgery, peak treatment (10 consecutive EDs), and high mean FVIII dose (>45 IU/kg/ED). Odds ratios (OR) were calculated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 2709 patients, we analyzed 63 early and 26 late cases and 195 and 71 respectively matched controls. Peak treatment was associated with early and late inhibitor risk (crude OR 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-3.4; 4.0, 95%CI 1.1-14.3). This association was slightly less pronounced after adjustment for mean FVIII dose. High mean FVIII dose was also associated with early and late inhibitor risk (crude OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.5-5.1; 4.5, 95%CI 1.2-16.6). Surgery increased inhibitor risk for early cases. This was less pronounced for late cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that intensive FVIII treatment remains a risk factor for inhibitor development in non-severe hemophilia A after more than 50 EDs. Therefore, persistent caution is required throughout the life-time treatment course.

Expert opinion on the UK standard of care for haemophilia patients with inhibitors: a modified Delphi consensus study

Background and Aims:

Despite advances in haemophilia care, inhibitor development remains a significant complication. Although viable treatment options exist, there is some divergence of opinion in the appropriate standard approach to care and goals of treatment. The aim of this study was to assess consensus on United Kingdom (UK) standard of care for child and adult haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

Methods:

A modified Delphi study was conducted using a two-round online survey. A haemophilia expert steering committee and published literature informed the Round 1 questionnaire. Invited participants included haematologists, haemophilia nurses and physiotherapists who had treated at least one haemophilia patient with inhibitors in the past 5 years. Consensus for 6-point Likert scale questions was pre-defined as ⩾70% participants selecting 1–2 (disagreement) or 5–6 (agreement).

Results:

In all, 46.7% and 35.9% questions achieved consensus in Rounds 1 (n = 41) and 2 (n = 34), respectively. Consensus was reached on the importance of improving quality of life (QoL) and reaching clinical goals such as bleed prevention, eradication of inhibitors and pain management. There was agreement on criteria constituting adequate/inadequate responses to immune tolerance induction (ITI) and the appropriate factor VIII dose to address suboptimal ITI response. Opinions varied on treatment aims for adults and children/adolescents, when to offer prophylaxis with bypassing agents and expectations of prophylaxis. Consensus was also lacking on appropriate treatment for mild/moderate patients with inhibitors.

Conclusion:

UK healthcare professionals appear to be aligned on the clinical goals and role of ITI when managing haemophilia patients with inhibitors, although novel treatment developments may require reassessment of these goals. Lack of consensus on prophylaxis with bypassing agents and management of mild/moderate cases identifies a need for further research to establish more comprehensive, evidence-based treatment guidance, particularly for those patients who are unable/prefer not to receive non-factor therapies.

Nonsevere hemophilia A: often overlooked, but not forgotten

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonsevere hemophilia A (NSHA) patients have received relatively little clinical and research attention as compared with their severe counterparts. There is increasing recognition that despite their milder bleeding phenotype, the management of NSHA can be a challenge, with most management decisions largely inferred from severe hemophilia A data. This review focuses on some of the more recent developments in the field of NSHA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiologic studies suggest that NSHA remain under-recognized and under-diagnosed globally. As the NSHA population ages, they are susceptible to age-related comorbidities. Large cohort studies of NSHA report that the most common primary cause of death is malignancy. NSHA patients have a lifetime risk of inhibitor development with increasing exposure to factor VIII concentrate. Even so, not all patients with inhibitors will require eradication treatment, irrespective of bleeding phenotype at time of inhibitor development.

SUMMARY

As there are currently no evidence-based strategies for inhibitor eradication in NSHA patients, preventive strategies are critical to mitigate inhibitor risk in NSHA. There is a need for active surveillance of NSHA patients by hemophilia treatment centers to address hemophilia-related issues and other age-related comorbidities, in collaboration with primary care physicians and other subspecialists.

Current challenges for men and women with mild-to-moderate haemophilia

Current treatments in the field of haemophilia are changing the phenotype of many patients with severe haemophilia to that of mild haemophilia. Despite this improvement, those with mild-to-moderate haemophilia A and haemophilia B continue to experience unmet needs. Whereas some patients with mild-to-moderate haemophilia experience similar complications to those of patients with severe haemophilia, they possess several unique attributes. These include a challenging diagnosis and variability in bleeding symptoms and treatment needs. In addition, haemophilia is an under-recognized condition in women even though many women with mild-to-moderate haemophilia experience the same symptoms and complications as men with haemophilia. These women also have their own unique challenges with this disease. This supplement highlights many of the unmet needs in men and women with mild-to-moderate haemophilia. The conclusions of each of these papers reinforce the need for additional research and resources for this patient population.

HLA-DRB1-factor VIII binding is a risk factor for inhibitor development in nonsevere hemophilia: a case-control study

Development of anti-factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitory antibodies (inhibitors) is the most significant treatment complication of hemophilia A. Characteristics of the interaction between major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II and FVIII peptides may influence FVIII antigen presentation to T cells and subsequent inhibitor development. We analyzed predicted HLA-DRB1, a subset of MHC class II, and FVIII peptide binding and its association with inhibitor development among subjects with nonsevere hemophilia A, including 20 cases (inhibitor titer ≥ 1.0 BU/mL on 2 occasions or on 1 occasion with subsequent immune tolerance induction) and 37 controls (who had received FVIII infusions and did not develop inhibitor). Using the MHC-II Binding Predictions Tool (https://www.iedb.org), the binding affinity and core binding were determined for endogenous FVIII (eFVIII) and treatment FVIII (tFVIII). A tFVIII peptide was considered novel if it was predicted to bind and present a surface to the T-cell receptor that was unique from that presented by eFVIII. Having >10 novel HLA-DRB1 allele-tFVIII peptide combinations was associated with inhibitor development (adjusted odds ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-15.0). Cases and controls with p.Arg612Cys and p.Arg2169His demonstrated a high level of novel HLA-DRB1-tFVIII peptide combinations. Assessing the likelihood that tFVIII is presented to T cells in a novel fashion may be useful for understanding and ultimately reducing the risk for inhibitor development among patients with nonsevere hemophilia, particularly those with F8 mutations other than p.Arg612Cys and p.Arg2169His.

Inhibitors in haemophilia A and B: Management of bleeds, inhibitor eradication and strategies for difficult-to-treat patients

The standard therapy for patients with haemophilia is prophylactic treatment with replacement factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX). Patients who develop inhibitors against FVIII/FIX face an increased risk of bleeding, and the likelihood of early development of progressive arthropathy, alongside higher treatment-related costs. Bypassing agents can be used to prevent and control bleeding, as well as the recently licensed prophylaxis, emicizumab, but their efficacy is less predictable than that of factor replacement therapy. Antibody eradication, by way of immune tolerance induction (ITI), is still the preferred management strategy for treating patients with inhibitors. This approach is successful in most patients, but some are difficult to tolerise and/or are unresponsive to ITI, and they represent the most complicated patients to treat. However, there are limited clinical data and guidelines available to help guide physicians in formulating the next treatment steps in these patients. This review summarises currently available treatment options for patients with inhibitors, focussing on ITI regimens and those ITI strategies that may be used in difficult-to-treat patients. Some alternative, non-ITI approaches for inhibitor management, are also proposed.

Inhibitors in nonsevere haemophilia A: outcome and eradication strategies

In nonsevere haemophilia A (HA) patients the presence of an inhibitor may exacerbate the bleeding phenotype dramatically. There are very limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach to eradicate inhibitors in these patients. We aimed to describe inhibitor eradication treatment in a large cohort of unselected nonsevere HA patients with inhibitors. We included 101 inhibitor patients from a source population of 2,709 nonsevere HA patients (factor VIII 2–40 IU/dl), treated in Europe and Australia (median age 37 years, interquartile range (IQR) 15–60; median peak titre 7 BU/ml, IQR 2–30). In the majority of the patients (71 %; 72/101) the inhibitor disappeared; either spontaneously (70 %, 51/73) or after eradication treatment (75 %, 21/28). Eradication treatment strategies varied widely, including both immune tolerance induction and immunosuppression. Sustained success (no inhibitor after rechallenge with factor VIII concentrate after inhibitor disappearance) was achieved in 64 % (30/47) of those patients rechallenged with FVIII concentrate. In high-titre inhibitor patients sustained success was associated with eradication treatment (unadjusted relative risk 2.3, 95 % confidence interval 1.3–4.3), compared to no eradication treatment. In conclusion, in nonsevere HA patients most inhibitors disappear spontaneously. However, in 35 % (25/72) of these patients an anamnestic response still can occur when rechallenged, thus disappearance in these patients does not always equal sustained response. Treatment for those requiring eradication has to be decided case by case, as one single approach is unlikely to be appropriate for all.

Study was carried out in: Emma Children’s Hospital, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Treatment and Prevention of Bleeds in Haemophilia Patients with Inhibitors to Factor VIII/IX

The development of alloantibodies neutralising therapeutically administered factor (F) VIII/IX (inhibitors) is currently the most severe complication of the treatment of haemophilia. When persistent and at a high titre, inhibitors preclude the standard replacement treatment with FVIII/FIX concentrates, making patients’ management challenging. Indeed, the efficacy of bypassing agents, i.e., activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC) and recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa), needed to overcome the haemostatic interference of the inhibitor, is not comparable to that of factor concentrates. In addition, the therapeutical response is unpredictable, with a relevant inter-individual and even intra-individual variability, and no laboratory assay is validated to monitor the efficacy and safety of the treatment. As a result, inhibitor patients have a worse joint status and quality of life compared to inhibitor-free subjects and the eradication of the inhibitor by immune tolerance induction is the preeminent therapeutic goal, particularly in children. However, over the last decades, treatment with bypassing agents has been optimised, allowing home treatment and the individualisation of regimens aimed at improving clinical outcomes. In this respect, a growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of prophylaxis with both bypassing agents in reducing bleeding rates and improving the quality of life, although the impact on long-term outcomes (in particular on preventing/reducing joint deterioration) is still unknown. This review offers an update on the current knowledge and practice of the use of bypassing agents in haemophiliacs with inhibitors, as well as on debated issues and unmet needs in this challenging setting.

F376A/M388A-solulin, a new promising antifibrinolytic for severe haemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

Haemophilia is a major bleeding disorder due to a deficiency of procoagulant factor VIII (type A) or IX (type B). The treatment is substitutive and based on infusion of factor concentrates. Main limitations of this therapy are cost, short factor half-life and the development of inhibitors (up to 30% of severe HA patients). An important aggravating factor of haemophilia is due to a premature fibrinolysis, directing attention to the therapeutic potential of suitable antifibrinolytics. Thrombomodulin (TM) is a key player of the coagulation cascade by activating protein C (an inhibitor of thrombin generation, thus antagonizing coagulation) and of the fibrinolytic cascade by activating thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor TAFI (thus reducing fibrinolysis). Solulin is a soluble form of TM that shows both capabilities.

AIM

Here, we developed a new generation of solulin variants (F376A-, M388A- and F376A/M388A-solulin) with a decreased ability to activate protein C and a conserved capacity to activate TAFI.

METHODS

We produced and characterized solulin variants in vitro. In addition, F376A/M388A-solulin was tested ex vivo, using blood samples of haemophilic A patients, with thromboelastography.

RESULTS

The solulin variants (F376A, M388A and the double-mutant F376A/M388A) lost their abilities to activate protein C but are still capable to activate TAFI. Thrombelastography showed increased clot firmness and stability, that, as opposed to wild-type solulin, was maintained even at high concentrations of F376A/M388A-solulin (100 nm).

CONCLUSION

In sum, these results open new opportunities for the development of specific medication for haemophilic patients.

Toward optimal therapy for inhibitors in hemophilia

Treatment of patients with hemophilia A and B has undergone significant advances during the past 2 decades. However, despite these advances, the development of antibodies that inhibit the function of infused clotting factor remains a major challenge and is considered the most significant complication of hemophilia treatment. This chapter reviews current tools available for the care of patients with inhibitors and highlights areas where progress is imminent or strongly needed. For management of bleeding, bypassing agents remain the mainstay of therapy. Recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrates are similarly effective in populations of patients with hemophilia and inhibitors; however, individuals may show a better response to one agent over another. Recent studies have shown that prophylaxis with bypassing agents can reduce bleeding episodes by ∼50%-80%. The prophylactic use of bypassing agents is an important tool to reduce morbidity in patients before they undergo immune tolerance induction (ITI) and in those with persistent high titer inhibitors, but cost and lack of convenience remain barriers. Because of the significant burden that inhibitors add to the individual patient and the health care system, inhibitor eradication should be pursued in as many patients as possible. ITI is an effective tool, particularly in patients with severe hemophilia A and good risk profiles, and leads to a return to a normal factor VIII response in ∼60% of patients. However, for the group of patients who fail to respond to ITI or have hemophilia B, new and improved tools are needed.

Toward optimal therapy for inhibitors in hemophilia

Treatment of patients with hemophilia A and B has undergone significant advances during the past 2 decades. However, despite these advances, the development of antibodies that inhibit the function of infused clotting factor remains a major challenge and is considered the most significant complication of hemophilia treatment. This chapter reviews current tools available for the care of patients with inhibitors and highlights areas where progress is imminent or strongly needed. For management of bleeding, bypassing agents remain the mainstay of therapy. Recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrates are similarly effective in populations of patients with hemophilia and inhibitors; however, individuals may show a better response to one agent over another. Recent studies have shown that prophylaxis with bypassing agents can reduce bleeding episodes by ∼50%-80%. The prophylactic use of bypassing agents is an important tool to reduce morbidity in patients before they undergo immune tolerance induction (ITI) and in those with persistent high titer inhibitors, but cost and lack of convenience remain barriers. Because of the significant burden that inhibitors add to the individual patient and the health care system, inhibitor eradication should be pursued in as many patients as possible. ITI is an effective tool, particularly in patients with severe hemophilia A and good risk profiles, and leads to a return to a normal factor VIII response in ∼60% of patients. However, for the group of patients who fail to respond to ITI or have hemophilia B, new and improved tools are needed.

Inhibitor development and management in three non-severe haemophilia A patients with T295A variant

Missense mutations are the most common F8 gene defects among the patients with non-severe haemophilia A. This type of mutation is typically associated with low (5%) inhibitor risk. In the present retrospective study we analysed the clinical data of 16 haemophiliacs with the T295A missense mutation treated at Bonn Haemophilia Centre. In total, three patients developed inhibitors: two patients experienced low-titer and one high-titer inhibitors. Both patients with low titer inhibitors underwent successful ITI. The third patient, at the age of 81, developed initially low-titer inhibitors (3 BU/ml) after rFVIII therapy because of knee surgery. He experienced spontaneous multiple large skin haematomas and haemarthrosis. Immunosuppressive therapy was not applicable because of the infectious origin of discitis (Th3-Th4). Immunoadsorption was performed, but the inhibitor titer increased up to 42 BU/ml nine weeks after termination. A successful treatment of discitis with antibiotics finally allowed a weekly therapy (four times) with rituximab (375 mg/m(2)). This resulted in a decrease of inhibitor titre to 0.7 BU/ml eight weeks after the fourth rituximab application. Patient had endogenous FVIII levels of 3-5%. Twelve months after rituximab therapy (after B cells recovery) he relapsed with low-titer inhibitors and therefore was treated with single rituximab dose (375 mg/m(2)) again. This resulted in his depletion of B cells, measurable endogenous FVIII levels and non measurable inhibitors. This study demonstrated T295A variant to be associated with significantly increased (3/16 patients, 17%) inhibitor development.

A Comparison of Efficacy Between Recombinant Activated Factor VII (Aryoseven) and Novoseven in Patients With Hereditary FVIII Deficiency With Inhibitor

Introduction:

This study compared the efficacy of Aryoseven with Novoseven to control bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors.

Methods:

Sixty-six patients were randomized into 2 groups, with 4 consecutive block randomization. These groups received Aryoseven and Novoseven dosages of 90 to 120 μg/kg intravenously every 2 hours.

Results:

Median (interquartile range) level of factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitor in groups A and B was 15.0 and 19.0 Bethesda Unit (BU) preadministration. Bleeding onset in group A was 1246 ± 1104 minutes and in group B was 2301 ± 1693 minutes ( P = .311). The Kavakli global response scores and treatment success rate was comparable in both the groups. The side effects in groups A (9.7%) and B (2.9%) were comparable.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar recombinant activated FVII is found to be as effective as Novoseven in the treatment of acute joint bleeding in patients with hemophilia with inhibitors. Its usage will decrease the gaps in hemophilia.

Rituximab as first-line treatment for the management of adult patients with non-severe hemophilia A and inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The role of immunosuppression in the management of patients with congenital hemophilia and inhibitors is uncertain. The use of rituximab has been limited to case reports and case series. In most reports, rituximab was used as second-line or third-line treatment following failure of conventional immune tolerance induction therapy, and more commonly in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe our experience with rituximab for the eradication of factor VIII inhibitors in adult patients with non-severe hemophilia A.

PATIENTS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of adult patients with non-severe hemophilia A and a diagnosis of FVIII inhibitor treated with rituximab (four weekly doses of 375 mg m(-2) ) as first-line treatment at our hemophilia center.

RESULTS

We identified nine consecutive adult patients with hemophilia A (moderate, n = 5; mild, n = 4) at our institution between 2000 and 2013, with a median age of 54 years (range, 24-77 years) at the time of inhibitor diagnosis. No patient received concomitant immune tolerance induction therapy. All nine patients had successful eradication of FVIII inhibitors. The median time from the first dose of rituximab to a clinical response was 95 days (range, 12-278 days). The median follow-up was 56 months (range, 13-139 months). Following inhibitor eradication, eight patients were rechallenged with FVIII concentrates. Two patients developed inhibitor recurrence associated with surgery.

CONCLUSION

This case series demonstrates that rituximab is a useful first-line treatment to achieve sustained inhibitor eradication in adult patients with non-severe hemophilia A.

Progress toward inducing immunologic tolerance to factor VIII

A major problem in treating hemophilia A patients with therapeutic factor VIII (FVIII) is that 20% to 30% of these patients produce neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies. These antibodies block (inhibit) the procoagulant function of FVIII and thus are termed "inhibitors." The currently accepted clinical method to attempt to eliminate inhibitors is immune tolerance induction (ITI) via a protocol requiring intensive FVIII treatment until inhibitor titers drop. Although often successful, ITI is extremely costly and is less likely to succeed in patients with high-titer inhibitors. During the past decade, significant progress has been made in clarifying mechanisms of allo- and autoimmune responses to FVIII and in suppression of these responses. Animal model studies are suggesting novel, less costly methods to induce tolerance to FVIII. Complementary studies of anti-FVIII T-cell responses using blood samples from human donors are identifying immunodominant T-cell epitopes in FVIII and possible targets for tolerogenic efforts. Mechanistic experiments using human T-cell clones and lines are providing a clinically relevant counterpoint to the animal model studies. This review highlights recent progress toward the related goals of lowering the incidence of anti-FVIII immune responses and promoting durable, functional immune tolerance to FVIII in patients with an existing inhibitor.

Long-lasting recombinant factor VIII proteins for hemophilia A

In the past 50 years, the lifespan of an individual affected with severe hemophilia A has increased from a mere 20 years to near that of the general unaffected population. These advances are the result of and parallel advances in the development and manufacture of replacement therapies. We are now poised to witness further technologic leaps with the development of longer-lasting replacement therapies, some of which are likely to be approved for market shortly. Prophylactic therapy is currently the standard of care for young children with severe hemophilia A, yet requires frequent infusion to achieve optimal results. Longer-lasting products will transform our ability to deliver prophylaxis, especially in very young children. Longer-lasting replacement therapies will require changes to our current treatment plans including those for acute bleeding, prophylaxis, surgical interventions, and even perhaps immunotolerance induction. Ongoing observation will be required to determine the full clinical impact of this new class of products.