Emicizumab for hemophilia A without inhibitors

Emicizumab prophylaxis in people with hemophilia A and inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Until recently, the treatment of people with hemophilia A and inhibitors (PwHAi) was based on the use of bypassing agents (BPA). However, the advent of emicizumab as prophylaxis has demonstrated promising results.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on BPA and those on emicizumab prophylaxis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of interventions and meta-analysis conducted at the Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.

METHODS

The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS databases were searched on February 21, 2023. Two authors conducted the literature search, publication selection, and data extraction. The selected publications evaluated the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on emicizumab prophylaxis and those on BPA prophylaxis. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for treated bleeds.

RESULTS

Five publications (56 PwHAi) were selected from the 543 retrieved records. Overall, bleeding endpoints were lower during emicizumab prophylaxis than during BPA prophylaxis. All the publications had at least one risk of bias. The only common parameter for the meta-analysis was the ABR for treated bleeds. During emicizumab prophylaxis, the ABR for treated bleeds was lower than during BPA prophylaxis (standard mean difference: -1.58; 95% confidence interval -2.50, -0.66, P = 0.0008; I2 = 68.4%, P = 0.0031).

CONCLUSION

Emicizumab was superior to BPA in bleeding prophylaxis in PwHAi. However, both the small population size and potential risk of bias should be considered when evaluating these results.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42021278726, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278726.

Dental management of people with complex or rare inherited bleeding disorders

Advances in haematological therapies for people with complex or rare inherited bleeding disorders (IBD) have resulted in them living longer, retaining their natural teeth with greater expectations of function and aesthetics. Dental management strategies need to evolve to meet these challenges. Utilising low level laser diode therapy to reduce pre-operative inflammation to reduce the intraoperative and postoperative burden on haemostasis is described in a case series of 12 patients. For these individuals who previously required further medical management to support haemostasis or experienced such prolonged haemorrhage sufficient to warrant hospital admission, haemostasis was achieved in the dental surgery such that they were able to return home with no further medical intervention or overnight stays. Global inequities in accessing novel treatments for complex or rare IBD necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the local haemostatic agents available to dentists and the most commonly used agents and techniques are described including the use of single tooth anaesthesia (STA). STA is a computerised delivery mechanism that allows routine dental procedures that would previously have required block injections needing factor replacement therapy to be undertaken safely and effectively with no additional haemostatic intervention. The challenges of inhibitors in oral surgery are explained and discussed although more research and evidence is required to establish new treatment protocols. The importance of establishing good dental health in the quality of life of people with complex or rare IBD is highlighted with respect to the dental specific impact that more novel therapies may have on people with IBD.

Non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B

BACKGROUND

Management of congenital hemophilia A and B is by prophylactic or on-demand replacement therapy with clotting factor concentrates. The effects of newer non-clotting factor therapies such as emicizumab, concizumab, marstacimab, and fitusiran compared with existing standards of care are yet to be systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (clinical, economic, patient-reported, and adverse outcomes) of non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeding and bleeding-related complications in people with congenital hemophilia A or B compared with prophylaxis with clotting factor therapies, bypassing agents, placebo, or no prophylaxis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, electronic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. The date of the last search was 16 August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating people with congenital hemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors, who were treated with non-clotting factor therapies to prevent bleeds.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data for the primary outcomes (bleeding rates, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events) and secondary outcomes (joint health, pain scores, and economic outcomes). We assessed the mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) of effect estimates, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs (including 397 males aged 12 to 75 years) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy in people with inhibitors Four trials (189 participants) compared emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab with on-demand therapy in people with inhibitors. Prophylaxis using emicizumab likely reduced annualized bleeding rates (ABR) for all bleeds (MD -22.80, 95% CI -37.39 to -8.21), treated bleeds (MD -20.40, 95% CI -35.19 to -5.61), and annualized spontaneous bleeds (MD -15.50, 95% CI -24.06 to -6.94), but did not significantly reduce annualized joint and target joint bleeding rates (AjBR and AtjBR) (1 trial; 53 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fitusiran also likely reduced ABR for all bleeds (MD -28.80, 95% CI -40.07 to -17.53), treated bleeds (MD -16.80, 95% CI -25.80 to -7.80), joint bleeds (MD -12.50, 95% CI -19.91 to -5.09), and spontaneous bleeds (MD -14.80, 95% CI -24.90 to -4.71; 1 trial; 57 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No evidence was available on the effect of bleed prophylaxis using fitusiran versus on-demand therapy on AtjBR. Concizumab may reduce ABR for all bleeds (MD -12.31, 95% CI -19.17 to -5.45), treated bleeds (MD -10.10, 95% CI -17.74 to -2.46), joint bleeds (MD -9.55, 95% CI -13.55 to -5.55), and spontaneous bleeds (MD -11.96, 95% CI -19.89 to -4.03; 2 trials; 78 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but not target joint bleeds (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.26 to 1.26). Emicizumab prophylaxis resulted in an 11.31-fold increase, fitusiran in a 12.5-fold increase, and concizumab in a 1.59-fold increase in the proportion of participants with no bleeds. HRQoL measured using the Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL) physical and total health scores was improved with emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab prophylaxis (low-certainty evidence). Non-serious adverse events were higher with non-clotting factor therapies versus on-demand therapy, with injection site reactions being the most frequently reported adverse events. Transient antidrug antibodies were reported for fitusiran and concizumab. Prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy in people without inhibitors Two trials (208 participants) compared emicizumab and fitusiran with on-demand therapy in people without inhibitors. One trial assessed two doses of emicizumab (1.5 mg/kg weekly and 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly). Fitusiran 80 mg monthly, emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly all likely resulted in a large reduction in ABR for all bleeds, all treated bleeds, and joint bleeds. AtjBR was not reduced with either of the emicizumab dosing regimens. The effect of fitusiran prophylaxis on target joint bleeds was not assessed. Spontaneous bleeds were likely reduced with fitusiran (MD -20.21, 95% CI -32.12 to -8.30) and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly (MD -15.30, 95% CI -30.46 to -0.14), but not with emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (MD -14.60, 95% CI -29.78 to 0.58). The percentage of participants with zero bleeds was higher following emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (50% versus 0%), emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly (40% versus 0%), and fitusiran prophylaxis (40% versus 5%) compared with on-demand therapy. Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week did not improve Haem-A-QoL physical and total health scores, EQ-5D-5L VAS, or utility index scores (low-certainty evidence) when compared with on-demand therapy at 25 weeks. Emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly may improve HRQoL measured by the Haem-A-QoL physical health score (MD -15.97, 95% CI -29.14 to -2.80) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (MD 9.15, 95% CI 2.05 to 16.25; 1 trial; 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Fitusiran may result in improved HRQoL shown as a reduction in Haem-A-QoL total score (MD -7.06, 95% CI -11.50 to -2.62) and physical health score (MD -19.75, 95% CI -25.76 to -11.94; 1 trial; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). The risk of serious adverse events in participants without inhibitors also likely did not differ following prophylaxis with either emicizumab or fitusiran versus on-demand therapy (moderate-certainty evidence). Transient antidrug antibodies were reported in 4% (3/80) participants to fitusiran, with no observed effect on antithrombin lowering. A comparison of the different dosing regimens of emicizumab identified no differences in bleeding, safety, or patient-reported outcomes. No case of treatment-related cancer or mortality was reported in any study group. None of the included studies assessed our secondary outcomes of joint health, clinical joint function, and economic outcomes. None of the included studies evaluated marstacimab.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs shows that prophylaxis using non-clotting factor therapies compared with on-demand treatment may reduce bleeding events, increase the percentage of individuals with zero bleeds, increase the incidence of non-serious adverse events, and improve HRQoL. Comparative assessments with other prophylaxis regimens, assessment of long-term joint outcomes, and assessment of economic outcomes will improve evidence-based decision-making for the use of these therapies in bleed prevention.

Maladaptive lymphangiogenesis is associated with synovial iron accumulation and delayed clearance in factor VIII-deficient mice after induced hemarthrosis

BACKGROUND

Mechanisms of iron clearance from hemophilic joints are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To better understand mechanisms of iron clearance following joint bleeding in a mouse model of hemophilia.

METHODS

Hemarthrosis was induced by subpatellar puncture in factor VIII (FVIII)-deficient (FVII-/-) mice, +/- periprocedural recombinant human FVIII, and hypocoagulable (HypoBALB/c) mice. HypoBALB/c mice experienced transient FVIII deficiency (anti-FVIII antibody) at the time of injury combined with warfarin-induced hypocoagulability. Synovial tissue was harvested weekly up to 6 weeks after injury for histological analysis, ferric iron and macrophage accumulation (CD68), blood and lymphatic vessel remodeling (αSMA; LYVE1). Synovial RNA sequencing was performed for FVIII-/- mice at days 0, 3, and 14 after injury to quantify expression changes of iron regulators and lymphatic markers.

RESULTS

Bleed volumes were similar in FVIII-/- and HypoBALB/c mice. However, pronounced and prolonged synovial iron accumulation colocalizing with macrophages and impaired lymphangiogenesis were detected only in FVIII-/- mice and were prevented by periprocedural FVIII. Gene expression changes involved in iron handling (some genes with dual roles in inflammation) and lymphatic markers supported proinflammatory milieu with iron retention and disturbed lymphangiogenesis.

CONCLUSION

Accumulation and delayed clearance of iron-laden macrophages were associated with defective lymphangiogenesis after hemarthrosis in FVIII-/- mice. The absence of such findings in HypoBALB/c mice suggests that intact lymphatics are required for removal of iron-laden macrophages and that these processes depend on FVIII availability. Studies to elucidate the biological mechanisms of disturbed lymphangiogenesis in hemophilia appear critical to develop new therapeutic targets.

Hemophilia A: Emicizumab monitoring and impact on coagulation testing

Hemophilia A is an X-linked recessive bleeding disorder characterized by absent or ineffective coagulation factor VIII, a condition that could result in a severe and potentially life-threatening bleed. Although the current standard of care involves prophylactic replacement therapy of factor VIII, the development of neutralizing anti-factor VIII alloantibody inhibitors often complicates such therapeutic treatment. Emicizumab (Hemlibra®), a novel recombinant therapeutic agent for patients with hemophilia A, is a humanized asymmetric bispecific IgG4 monoclonal antibody designed to mimic activated factor VIII by bridging factor IXa and factor X thus effecting hemostasis. Importantly, this drug eliminates the need for factor VIII and complications associated with inhibitor generation. Emicizumab has been approved for use in several countries including the United States and Japan for prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in hemophilia A with and without FVIII inhibitors. Therapy is also approved in the European Union for routine prophylaxis of bleeds in hemophilia A with inhibitors or severe hemophilia A without inhibitors. Unfortunately, emicizumab therapy presents unique challenges for routine and specialty coagulation tests currently used to monitor hemophilia A. In this review, hemophilia A is presented, the biochemistry of factor VIII is discussed, and the impact of the therapeutic agent emicizumab is highlighted.

How to translate and implement the current science of gene therapy into haemophilia care?

Gene-based therapy opens an entirely new paradigm in managing people with haemophilia (PWH), offering them the possibility of a functional cure by enabling continuous expression of factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX) after transfer of a functional gene designed to replace the PWH's own defective gene. In recent years, significant advances in gene therapy have been made, resulting in clotting factor activity attaining near-normal levels, as reflected by 'zero bleeding rates' in previously severely inflicted patients following a single administration of adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors. While this new approach represents a major advancement, there are still several issues that must be resolved before applying this technology in clinical practice. First, awareness, communication, and education about the therapeutic potential and modalities of gene therapy must be further strengthened. To this end, objective, unbiased, transparent, and regularly updated information must be shared, in an appropriate way and understandable language with the support of patients' organizations. Second, healthcare providers should adopt a patient-centred approach, as the 'one size fits all' approach is inappropriate when considering gene therapy. Instead, a holistic patient view taking into account their physical and mental dimensions, along with unexpressed expectations and preferences, is mandatory. Third, the consent procedure must be improved, ensuring that patients' interests are maximally protected. Finally, gene therapy is likely to be first delivered in a few centres, with the highest expertise and experience in this domain. Thus, patients should be managed based on a hub-and-spoke model, taking into account that the key to gene therapy's success lies in an optimal communication and collaboration both within and between haemophilia centres sharing their experiences in the frame of international registries. This review describes recent progress and explains outstanding hurdles that must be tackled to ease the implementation of this paradigm-changing new therapy.

Considerations for shared decision management in previously untreated patients with hemophilia A or B

Recent advances in therapeutics are now providing a wide range of options for adults and children living with hemophilia. Although therapeutic choices are also increasing for the youngest individuals with severe disease, challenges remain about early management decisions, as supporting data are currently limited. Parents and healthcare professionals are tasked with helping children achieve an inclusive quality of life and maintain good joint health into adulthood. Primary prophylaxis is the gold standard to optimize outcomes and is recommended to start before 2 years of age. A range of topics need to be discussed with parents to aid their understanding of the decisions they can make and how these will affect the management of their child/children. For those with a family history of hemophilia, prenatal considerations include the possibility of genetic counseling, prenatal investigations, and planning for delivery, together with monitoring of the mother and neonate, as well as diagnosis of the newborn and treatment of any birth-associated bleeding. Subsequent considerations, which are also applicable to families where infant bleeding has resulted in a new diagnosis of sporadic hemophilia, involve explaining bleed recognition and treatment options, practical aspects of initiating/continuing prophylaxis, dealing with bleeds, and ongoing aspects of treatment, including possible inhibitor development. Over time, optimizing treatment efficacy, in which individualizing therapy around activities can play a role, and long-term considerations, including retaining joint health and tolerance maintenance, become increasingly important. The evolving treatment landscape is creating a need for continually updated guidance. Multidisciplinary teams and peers from patient organizations can help provide relevant information. Easily accessible, multidisciplinary comprehensive care remains a foundation to care. Equipping parents early with the knowledge to facilitate truly informed decision-making will help achieve the best possible longer-term health equity and quality of life for the child and family living with hemophilia.

Plain language summary

Points to be taken into account to help families make decisions to best care for children born with hemophilia Medical advances are providing a range of treatment options for adults and children with hemophilia. There is, however, relatively limited information about managing newborns with the condition. Doctors and nurses can help parents to understand the choices for infants born with hemophilia. We describe the various points doctors and nurses should ideally discuss with families to enable informed decision-making. We focus on infants who require early treatment to prevent spontaneous or traumatic bleeding (prophylaxis), which is recommended to start before 2 years of age. Families with a history of hemophilia may benefit from discussions before pregnancy, including how an affected child would be treated to protect against bleeds. When mothers are pregnant, doctors can explain investigations that can provide information about their unborn child, plan for the birth, and monitor mother and baby to minimize bleed risks at delivery. Testing will confirm whether the baby is affected by hemophilia. Not all infants with hemophilia will be born to families with a history of the condition. Identification of hemophilia for the first time in a family (which is 'sporadic hemophilia') occurs in previously undiagnosed infants who have bleeds requiring medical advice and possibly hospital treatment. Before any mothers and babies with hemophilia are discharged from hospital, doctors and nurses will explain to parents how to recognize bleeding and available treatment options can be discussed. Over time, ongoing discussions will help parents to make informed treatment decisions:• When and how to start, then continue, prophylaxis.• How to deal with bleeds (reinforcing previous discussions about bleed recognition and treatment) and other ongoing aspects of treatment. ○ For instance, children may develop neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) to treatment they are receiving, requiring a change to the planned approach.• Ensuring treatment remains effective as their child grows, considering the varied needs and activities of their child.

Effect of emicizumab prophylaxis on bone and joint health markers in people with haemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors in the HAVEN 3 study

INTRODUCTION

Emicizumab prophylaxis significantly reduces bleeding events; however, the associated impact on bone/joint health is unknown.

AIM

To explore the effect of emicizumab prophylaxis on bone/joint health in people with haemophilia A (PwHA) without FVIII inhibitors enrolled in HAVEN 3 (NCT02847637).

METHODS

Haemophilia joint health scores (HJHS; v2.1) were evaluated at baseline and Weeks 49 and 97 in PwHA receiving emicizumab (n = 134), and at baseline and Weeks 49, 73 and 97 in PwHA who switched to emicizumab after 24 weeks of no prophylaxis (n = 17). Bone and joint biomarkers were measured in 117 PwHA at baseline and at Weeks 13, 25, 49 and 73.

RESULTS

HJHS was lower for PwHA who were previously on FVIII prophylaxis, aged <40 years or had no target joints at baseline compared with PwHA who were receiving no prophylaxis, aged ≥40 years or with target joints. Clinically significant mean (95% confidence interval) improvements from baseline of -2.13 (-3.96, -.29) in HJHS joint-specific domains were observed at Week 49 in PwHA with at least one target joint at study entry (n = 71); these changes were maintained through Week 97. Improvements in HJHS from baseline were also observed for PwHA aged 12-39 years. Biomarkers of bone resorption/formation, cartilage degradation/synthesis, and inflammation did not change significantly during emicizumab prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically relevant improvements in HJHS were observed in younger PwHA and those with target joints after 48 weeks of emicizumab in HAVEN 3. Biomarkers of bone/joint health did not show significant changes during 72 weeks of emicizumab prophylaxis.

Osteoporosis in hemophilia: what is its importance in clinical practice?

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between severe hemophilia and osteoporosis has been well established in the literature. However, although the importance of its prevention in order to reduce the risk of bone fractures has been reported, the importance of its treatment in clinical practice has not been well analyzed.

AREAS COVERED

In this paper a review of the available clinical and experimental information on osteoporosis in hemophilia has been performed, to better understand the relationship between hemophilia and osteoporosis. Prevention of osteoporosis in hemophilia should include primary hematological prophylaxis; a diet appropriate in calcium and vitamin D; a regular exercise program that includes aerobics, strength training and balance and flexibility activities; restriction of tobacco and alcohol use; and limitation of the duration of immobilization.

EXPERT OPINION

Prevention of osteoporosis in hemophilic patients is paramount. However, it is noteworthy that there is only one publication on the treatment of osteoporosis in patients with hemophilia. Until further research is done on this topic, the existing recommendations for non-hemophilic patients should be followed. They include the use of antiresorptives (estrogens, selective estrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates, denosumab) and anabolic agents (teriparatide, abaloparatide, romosozumab). Further studies on the management of osteoporosis in patients with hemophilia are required.

Current Choices and Management of Treatment in Persons with Severe Hemophilia A without Inhibitors: A Mini-Delphi Consensus

BACKGROUND

Regular treatment to prevent bleeding and consequent joint deterioration (prophylaxis) is the standard of care for persons with severe hemophilia A, traditionally based on intravenous infusions of the deficient clotting FVIII concentrates (CFCs). In recent years, extended half-life (EHL) CFCs and the non-replacement agent emicizumab, subcutaneously administered, have reduced the treatment burden.

METHODS

To compare and integrate the opinions on the different therapies available, eight hemophilia specialists were involved in drafting items of interest and relative statements through the Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE) method ("mini-Delphi"), in this way reaching consensus.

RESULTS

Eighteen items were identified, then harmonized to 10, and a statement was generated for each. These statements highlight the importance of personalized prophylaxis regimens. CFCs, particularly EHL products, seem more suitable for this, despite the challenging intravenous (i.v.) administration. Limited real-world experience, particularly in some clinical settings, and the lack of evidence on long-term safety and efficacy of non-replacement agents, require careful individual risk/benefit assessment and multidisciplinary data collection.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased treatment options extend the opportunities of personalized prophylaxis, the mainstay of modern management of hemophilia. Close, long-term clinical and laboratory follow-up of patients using newer therapeutic approaches by specialized hemophilia treatment centers is needed.

The societal burden of haemophilia A. III - The potential impact of emicizumab on costs of haemophilia A in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Emicizumab is a humanized monoclonal modified IgG4 antibody with bispecific antibody structure bridging Factor IXa and Factor X. Emicizumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety in adults, adolescents and paediatrics with HA, with or without inhibitors to Factor VIII (FVIII). There is currently no evidence that reports on the potential impact of the introduction of emicizumab on the societal costs of haemophilia A (HA). The purpose of this study was to explore the cost impact associated with the introduction of emicizumab on the current societal costs of people with HA (PwHA) in Australia.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of the impact of emicizumab on societal costs, based on changes in the direct and indirect costs incurred by PwHA. Potential impacts of emicizumab on outcomes in PwHA were modelled based on HAVEN 1, HAVEN 2 and HAVEN 3 studies. We assumed that eligible PwHA commenced use of emicizumab on 1 January 2018. The impact of emicizumab on costs of HA in Australia males was then estimated for the 12-month period to 31 December 2018.

RESULTS

Overall, uptake of emicizumab in its first year of use reduces annual costs associated with moderate/severe HA by AUD$69.197M (62.3%). This reflects 64.2% reduction in the cost of FVIII blood products and 92% reduction in cost of bypassing agents.

CONCLUSION

The cost of emicizumab is likely to offset some or all of the projected reductions in treatment costs. However, we also found 30.7% reduction in non-treatment direct costs (AUD$3.771M) and 19.1% reduction in indirect costs (AUD$2.732M).