Clinical Profile and Severity of Hemolysis in Adult Patients of Primary Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia and Their Response to Steroid: A Prospective Cohort Study from Single Institution

Clinical profile and serological correlation with haemolysis in DAT-positive autoimmune haemolytic anaemia patients in Bangladesh

Discerning the type of autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA) is crucial for transfusion support and initiation of treatment. This study aimed to establish the clinical profile and serological character of red cell autoantibodies and to investigate the relationship with haemolysis in AIHA patients who were direct antiglobulin test (DAT)-positive. A total of 59 DAT-positive AIHA patients were included in this study. Clinical, laboratory and serological findings were evaluated to find the gradation of haemolysis and to investigate its correlation with age, sex, type of autoantibody and level of autoantibody. Study findings revealed that most patients (89.8%) had haemolysis, wherein moderate haemolysis (67.8%) was predominant. Weakness, palpitations, fever, pallor, tachycardia and splenomegaly were common among patients with severe and moderate haemolysis. The majority (66.1%) had an associated disorder. Warm autoantibody was the most common, followed by cold and mixed cases. The severity of haemolysis correlated strongly with the strength of the DAT reaction (Cramer V 0.636, p<0.001). These findings may be useful to clinicians while determining a treatment plan. The direct relationship between severity of haemolysis and strength of DAT needs further exploration in a large population to establish whether it can be used as a tool to formulate a treatment plan when assessing AIHA patients in low resourced countries.

A national survey of current immunohematologic testing practices for the diagnosis of autoimmune hemolytic anemia in India

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is a common term for several disorders that differ from one another in terms of etiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, and treatment. Management of patients with AIHA has become increasingly evidence-based in recent years. While this development has resulted in therapeutic improvements, it also carries increased requirements for optimal diagnosis using more advanced laboratory tests. Unfortunately, limited data are available from developing countries regarding the testing and transfusion management of patients with AIHA. The main objective of this survey was to explore the current immunohematologic testing practices for the diagnosis of AIHA in India. This online survey consisted of 30 questions, covering the place of work, the number of AIHA cases encountered in the 3 preceding years, testing method(s), transfusion management, and so forth. Individuals representing 89 laboratories completed the survey; only 78 of which responded that AIHA testing was performed in their facility's laboratory. The majority of respondents agreed that the most commonly affected age-group comprised individuals of older than 20 years, with a female preponderance. Regarding transfusion management, respondents indicated that transfusion with "best-match" red blood cell units remains the most common practice. Column-agglutination technology is used by 92 percent of respondents as the primary testing method. Although a monospecific direct antiglobulin test is available at 73 percent of the sites, most of them have limited access to other resources that could diagnose cold or mixed AIHA. Merely 49 percent of responding laboratories have the resources to perform adsorption studies for the detection of alloantibodies. Furthermore, three-cell antibody screening reagents are unavailable at 32 percent of laboratories. In 72 percent of centers, clinical hematologists would prefer to consult a transfusion medicine specialist before administering treatment to AIHA patients. There is unanimous agreement regarding the need for a national registry. The survey data indicate wide variability in testing practices for patients with AIHA in India. Future studies are needed to focus on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different testing strategies for developing countries.

Healthcare resource utilization of patients with warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia initiating first line therapy of oral corticosteroids with or without rituximab

This retrospective cohort study described real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of patients with warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) initiating treatment with first-line (1L) oral corticosteroids (OCS) + rituximab (R) compared to 1L OCS. Patients with a wAIHA diagnosis code (D59.11) between 8/2020-3/2022 were identified using US pharmacy and medical claims databases. Patients initiating 1L OCS ± R were identified (date of initiation = 'index date') with a 1-year pre-index period and a variable (minimum 1-year) follow-up period. The final sample comprised 77 1L OCS + R patients and 400 1L OCS patients (~ 60% female, mean age > 64 years). Over the 1-year follow-up, HCRU was higher in the OCS + R cohort with higher mean number of physician office visits (22.9 and 14.4; p < 0.01), including hematology/oncology office visits, and higher utilization of rescue therapy (59.7% and 33.3%; p < 0.01), driven by higher use of injectable corticosteroids. Patients in OCS + R and OCS groups completed 1L therapy after a similar mean duration of 103.5 and 134.6 days, respectively (p = 0.24). In the majority of patients, second-line (2L) therapy was initiated at a similar timepoint: 66.2% OCS + R and 72.0% OCS cohorts (p = 0.31) initiated 2L in a mean of 218.3 and 203.2 days (p = 0.76) after the end of 1L treatment, respectively. The addition of rituximab in 1L did not extend the remission period, with most patients in both cohorts initiating 2L therapy within less than 1 year of completing 1L treatment. 1L OCS + R patients also had substantial HCRU burden. More effective novel therapies are needed to address the high unmet need in wAIHA.

Management of autoimmune haemolytic anaemia in low-to-middle income countries: current challenges and the way forward

Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA) is a common term for several disorders that differ from one another in terms of aetiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, and treatment. Therapy is becoming increasingly differentiated and evidence-based, and several new established and investigational therapeutic approaches have appeared during recent years. While this development has resulted in therapeutic improvements, it also carries increased medical and financial requirements for optimal diagnosis, subgrouping, and individualization of therapy, including the use of more advanced laboratory tests and expensive drugs. In this brief Viewpoint review, we first summarize the diagnostic workup of AIHA subgroups and the respective therapies that are currently considered optimal. We then compare these principles with real-world data from India, the world's largest nation by population and a typical low-to-middle income country. We identify major deficiencies and limitations in general and laboratory resources, real-life diagnostic procedures, and therapeutic practices. Incomplete diagnostic workup, overuse of corticosteroids, lack of access to more specific treatments, and poor follow-up of patients are the rule more than exceptions. Although it may not seem realistic to resolve all challenges, we try to outline some ways towards an improved management of patients with AIHA.

Severe autoimmune hemolytic anemia; epidemiology, clinical management, outcomes and knowledge gaps

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is an acquired hemolytic disorder, mediated by auto-antibodies, and has a variable clinical course ranging from fully compensated low grade hemolysis to severe life-threatening cases. The rarity, heterogeneity and incomplete understanding of severe AIHA complicate the recognition and management of severe cases. In this review, we describe how severe AIHA can be defined and what is currently known of the severity and outcome of AIHA. There are no validated predictors for severe clinical course, but certain risk factors for poor outcomes (hospitalisation, transfusion need and mortality) can aid in recognizing severe cases. Some serological subtypes of AIHA (warm AIHA with complement positive DAT, mixed, atypical) are associated with lower hemoglobin levels, higher transfusion need and mortality. Currently, there is no evidence-based therapeutic approach for severe AIHA. We provide a general approach for the management of severe AIHA patients, incorporating monitoring, supportive measures and therapeutic options based on expert opinion. In cases where steroids fail, there is a lack of rapidly effective therapeutic options. In this era, numerous novel therapies are emerging for AIHA, including novel complement inhibitors, such as sutimlimab. Their potential in severe AIHA is discussed. Future research efforts are needed to gain a clearer picture of severe AIHA and develop prediction models for severe disease course. It is crucial to incorporate not only clinical characteristics but also biomarkers that are associated with pathophysiological differences and severity, to enhance the accuracy of prediction models and facilitate the selection of the optimal therapeutic approach. Future clinical trials should prioritize the inclusion of severe AIHA patients, particularly in the quest for rapidly acting novel agents.