How to start prophylaxis

Prophylactic Treatment of Children with Hemophilia in Sweden

Hemophilia A/B are caused by deficiency or lack of coagulation factors VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX), respectively, in plasma. A person with hemophilia develops bleeding in the joints and muscles at an early age, which, if left untreated, leads to early arthropathy. Preventive treatment can be achieved by regular (prophylactic) administration of FVIII/FIX. In 1958, this was implemented on a small scale in Sweden with FVIII in patients with severe hemophilia A, and in those with hemophilia B in 1972 when FIX became available. However, there were problems with human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis infection from contaminated blood products. In the 1990s, recombinant FVIII and FIX concentrates were introduced. The major remaining problems then were the development of inhibitors, and the need for a venous route for the injections in very young children. High-titer inhibitors were treated by immune tolerance induction according to a modified model of the original Bonn high-dose protocol. A central venous line, i.e., Port-A-Cath, has enabled early prophylaxis in many children with poor venous access and has enabled the early start of home treatment with adequate injection frequency. Scoring systems for X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and function of joints were developed early in Sweden and have been widely disseminated worldwide, partly with modifications. Extended half-life products with half-life increased three to five times have been developed, which can provide superior bleed protection when dosed once-weekly and can maintain therapeutic trough levels when administered less frequently. The ultimate prophylaxis therapy in the future may be gene therapy.

Long-term impact of primary prophylaxis on joint status in patients with severe hemophilia A

Background

Primary prophylaxis with factor VIII concentrates is the therapeutic gold standard for severe hemophilia A. Although this approach will change substantially with the use of nonsubstitutive therapies, the long-term effects of primary prophylaxis remain unclear. We present information on joint health with tailored primary prophylaxis in a consecutive series at a single center.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 60 patients who did not develop early inhibitors. The annual bleeding rate and annual joint bleeding rate, prophylaxis characteristics, physical activity, adherence, and development of inhibitors were compared between those with and without joint involvement at the end of follow-up. Joint involvement was defined as a Hemophilia Joint Health Score or Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with an ultrasound score ≥1.

Results

Among 60 patients with median follow-up of 113 ± 6 months after starting prophylaxis, 76.7% had no joint involvement at the end of the follow-up. Those without joint involvement started prophylaxis at a younger median age (1 [IQR 1-1] year vs 3 [IQR 2-4.3] years). They also had lower annual joint bleeding rate (0.0 [IQR 0-0.2] vs 0.2 [IQR 0.1-0.5]), were more often physically active (70% vs 50%), and had lower trough factor VIII levels. Adherence to treatment was not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion

Initiation of primary prophylaxis at a younger age was the main factor associated with long-term preservation of joint status in patients with severe hemophilia A.

Tailored frequency-escalated primary prophylaxis for severe haemophilia A: results of the 16-year Canadian Hemophilia Prophylaxis Study longitudinal cohort

BACKGROUND

Severe haemophilia A has high morbidity, and treatment, while effective, is very expensive. We report the 16-year follow-up of the Canadian Hemophilia Prophylaxis Study, which examined the effectiveness of tailored frequency-escalated primary prophylaxis with a focus on health outcomes within the domains of body structures and functions, and activities and participation (according to the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [WHO-ICF] framework) and a view to reducing consumption of costly clotting factor, which accounts for more than 90% of the cost of care of severe haemophilia.

METHODS

In this longitudinal study, boys with severe haemophilia A from 12 Canadian centres were enrolled at age 1·0-2·5 years. They were treated with standard half-life recombinant factor VIII (SHL-rFVIII), beginning as once-weekly prophylaxis with 50 IU/kg and escalating in frequency (with accompanying dose adjustments) in response to breakthrough bleeding as determined by the protocol. The primary endpoint for this analysis was joint health, as measured by the modified Colorado Child Physical Examination Scores (CCPES) at study end. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is complete, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01085344.

FINDINGS

Between June 26, 1997, and Jan 30, 2007, 56 boys were enrolled. They were followed for a median of 10·2 years (to a maximum of 16·1 years). Median rFVIII usage was about 3600 IU/kg per year. The median end-of-study CCPES physical examination score was 1 (IQR 1-3; range 0-12) for the left ankle and 1 (1-2; 0-12) for the right ankle, with all other joints having a median score of 0. No treatment-related safety events occurred over the duration of the study, including central venous catheter infections. The median annualised index joint bleeding rate was 0·95 per year (IQR 0·44-1·35; range 0·00-13·43), but 17 (30%) patients had protocol-defined unacceptable breakthrough bleeding at some point during the study.

INTERPRETATION

Tailored frequency-escalated prophylaxis leads to very little arthropathy and very good health outcomes within the WHO-ICF domains, and only uses a moderate amount of expensive clotting factor as compared with standard prophylaxis protocols. Some sequelae of bleeding were observed in our cohort, and future studies should consider a more stringent protocol of escalation.

FUNDING

This study was initially funded by grants from the Medical Research Council of Canada/Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada Partnership Fund and the Bayer/Canadian Blood Services/Hema-Quebec Partnership Fund. Subsequent renewals were funded by Bayer.

Venous access in haemophilic children: choice and management

Current haemophilia treatment in children is based on regular intravenous infusions of concentrates for prolonged periods, according to prophylaxis regimens or immune tolerance induction treatment, in cases of inhibitor development. Therefore, a stable and uncomplicated venous access is required and as such peripheral veins represent the preferred option. However, frequent infusions in the home setting can be problematic in very young children and for this reason, central venous access devices (CVADs) have been widely used to improve treatment feasibility. Unfortunately CVADs' use is associated with a high rate of complications, and infections and thrombotic occlusion can influence treatment outcome by causing unwanted treatment interruption. CVADs can be grouped into three main categories: external non-tunnelled, external tunnelled and fully implantable devices known as ports. The management of CVADs at home often represents a challenge because a strict adherence to sterile procedures is required. Indeed, the incidence of infections with ports is much lower than that reported for external devices; however, ports carry the inconvenience of needle sticks. More recently, arteriovenous fistula was shown to be a suitable alternative to CVADs because it is easy to use and is associated with a lower rate of complication.

Prevention of arthropathy in haemophilia: prophylaxis

At present, when resources allow, the main issue in preventing arthropathy in patients with haemophilia is determining the 'optimal' prophylaxis regimen rather than the choice between primary prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. Barriers to prophylaxis implementation are still relevant and include difficulties with venous access, adherence to treatment regimens and costs. Prospective studies with different prophylactic regimens and objective outcome measures are still needed to determine the best cost-benefit ratio. The results from large retrospective cohorts followed up for decades in several European countries have shown that regular prophylaxis started at an early age is able to reduce physical impairment from haemophilic arthropathy. The efficacy of primary prophylaxis was finally demonstrated also in the setting of a randomized clinical trial.

Haemophilia care in children--benefits of early prophylaxis for inhibitor prevention

Haemophilia therapy is aimed at treating and preventing bleeding episodes and related complications and clinical studies have shown that regular prophylaxis, started at an early age, is able to reduce physical impairment from haemophilic arthropathy. Today, the development of anti-Factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors is the most serious treatment-related complication of haemophilia therapy and a number of genetic and environmental risk factors have been identified in the past years. Clinical data show that early start of prophylaxis and the avoidance of intensive treatment periods may protect patients from inhibitor development. The mechanisms are not completely understood; yet, recent experimental data suggest that pro-inflammatory or 'danger signals' may be involved in inducing tolerance vs. an effector immune response. So, exposure to a factor concentrate by itself may not be enough to trigger an immune response, while an intensive exposure to FVIII in the presence of such 'danger signals' can activate antigen-presenting cells, up-regulating co-stimulatory signals for T lymphocytes and ultimately enhancing antibody production. The 'optimal' regimen for primary prophylaxis is still not identified and barriers to prophylaxis implementation remain relevant. Key issues include the optimal age at prophylaxis onset, the optimal dosage/schedule, the proper clinical and laboratory monitoring and patients' compliance. Practical approaches to early prophylaxis as implemented in the haemophilia centres in Milan and Bremen are discussed in this respect.

Barriers to primary prophylaxis in haemophilic children: the issue of the venous access

Modem treatment for hemophilic children is based on prophylaxis and immune tolerance induction (ITI). Both treatment regimens are based on frequent infusions at early ages, therefore an adequate venous access is essential. Peripheral veins represent the best option, however, different solutions, as central venous access devices (CVADs) and arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs), can be adopted if needed. CVADs have been used in hemophiliacs, however their survival is affected by infectious complications. Among CVADs, fully implantable devices are usually preferred to external lines due to a lower infectious risk. The limited survival of CVADs may have a relevant impact on treatment outcome, especially in case of ITI where treatment interruptions are counterproductive. To overcome such drawbacks, internal AVF has been considered as an alternative option owing to a lower rate of infectious complications. Moreover, AVF is easy to use in the home setting and well accepted by children. Possible complications not preventing AVF use are postoperative hematoma and transient symptoms of distal ischemia; one case of symptomatic thrombosis has been reported so far. Long-term complications include loss of patency, aneurysmatic dilatation and, rarely, limb dysmetria and a regular follow-up is mandatory to allow early remedial intervention. Surgical dismantlement of AVF is recommended as soon as transition to peripheral veins is possible.

Haemophilia in the first years of life

Surgery in infants and young children with haemophilia, when preceded by accurate diagnosis and accompanied by safe and effective factor prophylaxis, is not associated with a significant risk of haemorrhage. Haemophilic newborns undergoing circumcision or major surgery prior to diagnosis and in the absence of appropriate haemostatic prophylaxis remain as a concern. Inhibitor development has replaced haemorrhage as the major surgical complication in the developed world, largely because of the intensity of treatment used to secure haemostasis. For that reason only, essential surgery should be performed. Intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) during the neonatal period affects 3.5-4.0% of all haemophilia boys in countries with a good standard of health care, which is considerably (40-80 times) higher than expected in the normal population. Because of the high frequency of sporadic cases, ICH in the neonatal period can only be partially prevented by improved carrier diagnosis and counselling. Infections and thrombosis are the major serious complications of central venous lines. Large differences are seen in the frequency of these complications, the most plausible explanations are probably related to the protocol used for device care, the quality of education and the compliance of the users, an issue addressed in an on-going study.

Towards the goal of prophylaxis: experience and treatment strategies from Sweden, France and Hungary

The only form of haemophilia treatment that is able to prevent arthropathy and other consequences of bleeding symptoms in patients with severe haemophilia is prophylaxis started at an early age (primary prophylaxis). It is also highly beneficial for the psychological and social wellbeing of patients and their families. Scientific institutions and international organizations such as WHO, the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) and the National Haemophilia Foundation (NHF) have recommended that prophylaxis be considered optimum therapy. This paper discusses the barriers to prophylaxis, such as the perceived need, costs and availability, and difficulty of venous access, and describes the authors' experiences with the therapy.

Changing pattern of care of boys with haemophilia in western European centres

Haemophilia management is not uniform among countries, even within western Europe, that have close economic, social and cultural relationship. The European Paediatric Network PedNet aims to share experiences in the field of the care of boys with haemophilia. In 1998, a PedNet survey has shown significant disparities in 20 centres from 16 countries, particularly as regards the implementation of prophylaxis regimen. This survey has been updated in 2003 to describe the current status of haemophilia management in 22 centres and the changing pattern of care of boys with severe haemophilia in western Europe. Regular, continuous long-term prophylaxis is provided in all PedNet centres, more than 50% and 80-100% of boys being treated this way in 20/22 and 15/22 centres respectively. Twenty of the 22 centres (91%) recommend continuous prophylaxis (primary or secondary A) for a new patient. The use of recombinant factor VIII concentrates was already widespread in 1998 and a further expansion of recombinant products has been observed over the last 5 years. Recombinant FVIII is now used exclusively in nine centres and for more than 80% of boys with haemophilia A in nine other centres. The use of recombinant and plasma derived FIX is more balanced: among 18 centres where boys with haemophilia B are treated, 14 use recombinant FIX, and nine administer it to a majority of patients. Other modifications of practice have been stressed in this survey, such as more targeted use of central venous devices in the youngest boys and more extensive characterisation of genetic mutations.

Prophylactic treatment effects on inhibitor risk: experience in one centre

Nowadays, the elective treatment for children with haemophilia is prophylaxis. There is a common consensus that this modality of therapeutic approach is not associated with a higher risk of inhibitor development. We analysed the inhibitor incidence in 50 haemophiliac children and its relationship with mutations, type of clotting factor used and treatment modality. There was a significant correlation between receiving on-demand treatment and an increased incidence of inhibitors, independently of mutations or factor used. We advise putting haemophiliac children under prophylactic treatment as soon as possible, especially if they have mutations associated with high risk of inhibitor development, as prophylaxis is negatively associated with the development of inhibitors.

Update on treatment regimens: prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy

Prophylaxis, or the routine scheduled replacement of clotting factor concentrate in patients with hemophilia, greatly decreases episodes of joint hemorrhage and effectively prevents the development of chronic joint arthropathy and disability. Despite clear evidence of its effectiveness and the fact that it is recommended by international authorities, prophylaxis still is not widely accepted in the hemophilia community. In the United States, approximately half of children with severe hemophilia A and one third of those with hemophilia B are on prophylactic regimens. Factors limiting acceptance include the need for venous access, factor availability, poor acceptance of injection therapy, safety concerns, cost, and a perceived lack of need. Questions remaining to be answered include the reasons for inter-individual variability in bleeding patterns, predictors for and reversibility of joint damage, and the optimal regimen for prophylaxis. A need exists for validated and standardized outcome measures in future research, as well as for research into factors that affect families' adherence to prophylactic regimens for their children.