Meta-analysis on incidence of inhibitors in patients with haemophilia A treated with recombinant factor VIII products

A post hoc analysis of previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A who developed inhibitors in the PUPs A-LONG trial

ABSTRACT

Inhibitor development is a major therapeutic complication for people with hemophilia. The phase 3 PUPs A-LONG study evaluated the safety and efficacy of efmoroctocog alfa (a recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein, herein referred to as rFVIIIFc) in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A. Male PUPs <6 years old were enrolled and received rFVIIIFc; inhibitor development was the primary end point. Post hoc analyses, including patient treatment regimen patterns and timing of inhibitor development, descriptive and Kaplan-Meier analyses of time to first inhibitor-positive test by treatment regimen and by titer, and consumption, were performed to describe patients who developed inhibitors during PUPs A-LONG. We investigated patient characteristics (eg, demographics and genotype) and nongenetic risk factors (eg, intense factor exposure and central venous access device [CVAD] placement) that may predict inhibitor development and characteristics of inhibitor development (low-titer vs high-titer inhibitor). Baseline characteristics were similarly distributed for age, race, and ethnicity across both patients who were inhibitor-positive and those who were inhibitor-negative (all P > .05). High-risk F8 variants were associated with development of high-titer inhibitors (P = .028). High-titer inhibitor development was often preceded by the presence of a low-titer inhibitor. Patients whose low-titer inhibitor progressed to a high-titer inhibitor received a higher mean dose per infusion (98.4 IU/kg, n = 5) compared with those whose low-titer inhibitor resolved spontaneously (59.2 IU/kg, n = 7; P = .033) or persisted (45.0 IU/kg, n = 5; P = .047). There was no association between CVAD placement surgery and inhibitor development. Post hoc analyses suggest that F8 genotype and dose of factor are as important as inhibitor risk factors and require further investigation. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02234323.

Inhibitor development according to concentrate in severe hemophilia: reporting on 1392 Previously Untreated Patients from Europe and Canada

Background

Clotting factor concentrates have been the mainstay of severe hemophilia treatment over the last 50 years. Differences in risk of neutralizing antibody (inhibitor) formation according to concentrate used remain clinically relevant.

Objectives

To assess inhibitor development according to type of clotting factor concentrate in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A and B.

Methods

The European Haemophilia Safety Surveillance (EUHASS) and Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry (CBDR) have been monitoring adverse events overall and according to concentrate for 11 and 8 years, respectively. Inhibitors were reported quarterly, and PUPs completed 50 exposure days without inhibitor development annually. Cumulative inhibitor incidences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compared without adjustment for other risk factors.

Results

Fifty-six European and 23 Canadian centers reported inhibitor development in 312 of 1219 (26%; CI, 23%-28%) PUPs with severe hemophilia A and 14 of 173 (8%; CI, 5%-13%) PUPs with severe hemophilia B. Inhibitor development was lower on plasma-derived factor (F)VIII (pdFVIII, 20%; CI, 14%-26%) than on standard half-life recombinant FVIII (SHL-rFVIII, 27%; CI, 24%-30% and odds ratio, 0.67; CI, 0.45%-0.98%; P = .04). Extended half-life recombinant FVIII (EHL-rFVIII, 22%; CI, 12%-36%) showed an intermediate inhibitor rate, while inhibitor rates for Advate (26%; CI, 22%-31%) and Kogenate/Helixate (30%; CI, 24%-36%) overlapped. For other SHL-rFVIII concentrates, inhibitor rates varied from 3% to 43%. Inhibitor development was similar for pdFIX (11%; CI, 3%-25%), SHL-rFIX (8%; CI, 3%-15%), and EHL-rFIX (7%; CI, 1%-22%).

Conclusion

While confirming expected rates of inhibitors in PUPs, inhibitor development was lower in pdFVIII than in SHL-rFVIII. Preliminary data suggest variation in inhibitor development among different SHL-rFVIII and EHL-rFVIII concentrates.

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

First study of extended half-life rFVIIIFc in previously untreated patients with hemophilia A: PUPs A-LONG final results

PUPs A-LONG is the first study of an extended half-life recombinant factor VIII (rFVIIIFc) in PUPs with hemophilia A.

Incidence of inhibitors for patients with ≥10 exposure days was 31.1%; incidence of high-titer inhibitors was relatively low at 15.6%.

PUPs A-LONG evaluated the safety and efficacy of recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with hemophilia A. This open-label, phase 3 study enrolled male PUPs (<6 years) with severe hemophilia A to receive rFVIIIFc. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of inhibitor development. Secondary endpoints included annualized bleed rate (ABR). Of 103 subjects receiving ≥1 dose of rFVIIIFc, 80 (78%) were aged <1 year at the study start, 20 (19%) had a family history of inhibitors, and 82 (80%) had high-risk F8 mutations. Twenty subjects began on prophylaxis, while 81 began an on-demand regimen (69 later switched to prophylaxis). Eighty-seven (81%) subjects completed the study. Inhibitor incidence was 31.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8% to 41.7%) in subjects with ≥10 exposure days (or inhibitor); high-titer inhibitor incidence was 15.6% (95% CI, 8.8% to 24.7%). The median (range) time to high-titer inhibitor development was 9 (4-14) exposure days. Twenty-eight (27%) subjects experienced 32 rFVIIIFc treatment-related adverse events; most were inhibitor development. There was 1 nontreatment-related death due to intracranial hemorrhage (onset before the first rFVIIIFc dose). The overall median (interquartile range [IQR]) ABR was 1.49 (0.00-4.40) for subjects on variable prophylaxis dosing regimens. In this study of rFVIIIFc in pediatric PUPs with severe hemophilia A, overall inhibitor development was within the expected range, although high-titer inhibitor development was on the low end of the range reported in the literature. rFVIIIFc was well-tolerated and effective for prophylaxis and treatment of bleeds. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02234323).

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.

The effectiveness and value of emicizumab and valoctocogene roxaparvovec for the management of hemophilia A without inhibitors

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Rind, Herron-Smith, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Walton and Quach, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this report.

Role of Regulatory Cells in Immune Tolerance Induction in Hemophilia A

The main complication of hemophilia A treatment is the development of neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) against factor VIII (FVIII). Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the prescribed treatment for inhibitor eradication, although its working mechanism remains unresolved. To clarify this mechanism, we compared blood samples of hemophilia A patients with and without inhibitors for presence of immunoregulatory cells and markers, including regulatory B-cells (Bregs), regulatory T-cells (Tregs), myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and expression of regulatory markers on T-cells (programmed cell death protein 1 [PD1], inducable T-cell costimulator, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 [CTLA4]), by use of flow cytometry. By cross-sectional analysis inhibitor patients (N = 20) were compared with inhibitor-negative (N = 28) and ex-inhibitor (N = 17) patients. In another longitudinal study, changes in immunoregulatory parameters were evaluated during ITI (N = 12) and compared with inhibitor-negative hemophilia A patients (N = 36). The frequency of Bregs, but not of Tregs nor MDSCs, was significantly reduced in inhibitor patients (3.2%) compared with inhibitor-negative (5.9%) and ex-inhibitor patients (8.9%; P < 0.01). CTLA4 expression on T-cells was also reduced (mean fluorescence intensity 133 in inhibitor versus 537 in inhibitor-negative patients; P < 0.01). Fittingly, in patients followed during ITI, inhibitor eradication associated with increased Bregs, increased Tregs, and increased expression of CTLA4 and PD1 on CD4+ T-cells. In conclusion, inhibitor patients express significantly lower frequency of Bregs and Tregs marker expression, which are restored by successful ITI. Our findings suggest that an existing anti-FVIII immune response is associated with deficits in peripheral tolerance mechanisms and that Bregs and changes in immunoregulatory properties of CD4+ T-cells likely contribute to ITI in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors.

Epidemiological Challenges in Rare Bleeding Disorders: FVIII Inhibitor Incidence in Haemophilia A Patients-A Known Issue of Unknown Origin

There is a broad range of factor products approved in Germany for haemophilia A treatment. Since the introduction of recombinant coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) products in the 1990s, there has been substantial debate whether there is a difference in inhibitor incidence between single FVIII products or product classes. Neither haemophilia registries nor clinical studies, including a randomised controlled clinical trial, provided a consistent and definite answer. The reasons were mainly related to methodological challenges in conducting controlled studies in a rare disease. In this analysis, the most relevant epidemiological challenges and main problems were examined, including study bias, potential overlap of individual studies and advanced development of therapy and methods in the course of time. Meta-analyses on two levels showed that therapies using recombinant products resulted in different event rates when compared to plasma-derived products. These results are accompanied by substantial study heterogeneity evidenced by Cochran's Q tests. Only three studies have been identified that meet the standards of current clinical guidance. To finally resolve this ongoing and disputable safety issue of replacement therapy, collaboration among registry owners, academia and regulators must be fostered.

Cost of patients with hemophilia A treated with standard half-life or extended half-life FVIII in Spain

BACKGROUND

In a real-world analysis (RWA) conducted in the United States (US), median international units (IUs) of extended half-life (EHL) recombinant coagulation factor VIII (rFVIII) dispensed were 10% to 45% greater than standard half-life (SHL) rFVIII. The mean IUs of each rFVIII dispensed quarterly were obtained from two databases (N = 776).

METHODS

A probabilistic model in a 1-year time horizon was used in order to analyze the cost comparison of SHL and EHL rFVIII products in Spain. In this analysis, mean IUs were those of the RWA, and frequency of use and prices for each rFVIII were obtained from sales estimates based on Spanish sources (IQVIA; €, 2019).

RESULTS

Data showed an average annual savings per patient of €11,227 for SHL rFVIII versus EHL rFVIII products, with a savings probability of 75.5%. The results were stable in the sensitivity analyses. Not switching treatment from SHL to EHL rFVIII resulted in greater savings per patient (€53,078), with a savings probability of 99.9%. Considering the frequency of rFVIII dispensation in the US, annual savings per patient would increase to €16,350 in Spain, with a savings probability of 79.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this model, use of SHL rFVIII versus EHL rFVIII products could lead to savings for the Spanish National Health System.

Delivering on the promise of gene therapy for haemophilia

The promise of gene therapy is a single treatment ('one and done') that leads to steady-state expression of endogenous factor VIII or factor IX sufficient to achieve a functional cure (free of recurrent haemophilic bleeding) if not normalized haemostasis. The elimination of the need for continued prophylaxis, or factor replacement following trauma or prior to surgery would lead to annual cost savings. Such optimized health and well-being would be reaching a level of health equity that was unimaginable several decades ago. 'Before anything else, preparation is the key to success'-Alexander Graham Bell. This quote from the famous inventor, scientist and engineer highlights that, although we currently stand on the threshold of this achievement, delivering on this promise will require broad-based multistakeholder preparation (scientists, manufacturers, federal regulators, health technology assessors, persons with haemophilia, national advocacy groups and multidisciplinary healthcare teams) with a focused emphasis on education, approval of safe and effective therapies, removal of barriers to access and excellence in clinical delivery.

Economic impact model of delayed inhibitor development in patients with hemophilia a receiving emicizumab for the prevention of bleeding events

Aims: Cumulative exogenous factor VIII (FVIII) exposure is an important predictor of developing neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) to FVIII in patients with persons with hemophilia A (PwHA). The aim of this study was to model the costs of emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis and total treatment costs for patients with severe HA.Materials and Methods: An Excel-based decision model was developed to calculate cumulative costs in PwHA over a 20-year time horizon from the US payer perspective. The model considered persons with severe HA beginning at age 12 months with no prior FVIII exposure and initiating prophylaxis with emicizumab or FVIII. PwHA could develop inhibitors on accumulation of 20 FVIII exposure days. PwHA with inhibitors replaced FVIII with bypassing agents until inhibitors resolved spontaneously, following immune tolerance induction (ITI), or at the end of the time horizon. The primary model outcome was the difference in emicizumab versus FVIII treatment costs in 2019 USD. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of results.Results: Total incremental cost over 20 years was -$1,945,480 (emicizumab arm, $4,919,058; FVIII arm, $6,864,538). Prophylaxis costs (emicizumab arm, $4,096,105; FVIII arm, $6,290,919) comprised the majority of costs in both groups, followed by breakthrough bleed treatment for the FVIII arm ($342,652) and ITI costs for the emicizumab arm ($733,671). Higher costs in the FVIII group reflected earlier inhibitor development (FVIII, 4 months; emicizumab, 162 months) and switch to bypassing agents.Limitations: The model design reflects a simplified treatment pathway for patients with severe HA who initiate FVIII or emicizumab prophylaxis. In the absence of clinical data, a key conservative assumption of the model is that patients receiving emicizumab and FVIII prophylaxis have the same risk of developing inhibitors.Conclusions: This study suggests that prophylaxis with emicizumab results in cost savings compared to FVIII prophylaxis in HA.

The changing face of immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A with the advent of emicizumab

INTRODUCTION

As a result of the new treatment paradigm that the haemophilia community will face with the availability of novel (non-factor) therapies, an updated consensus on ITI recommendations and inhibitor management strategies is needed.

AIM

The Future of Immunotolerance Treatment (FIT) group was established to contemplate, determine and recommend the best management options for patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Despite the considerable success of emicizumab in the management of inhibitor patients, the FIT group still sees the importance of eradicating inhibitors. However, the availability of emicizumab and other non-factor therapies in the future might impact greatly on how ITI is undertaken. Theoretically, concomitant use of emicizumab and FVIII might allow emicizumab to effectively prevent bleeding with lower dose ITI regimens. This might allow for the greater adoption of low-dose/low-frequency FVIII ITI regimens, which may result in a reduced need for central venous access devices while still maintaining a reasonable likelihood of ITI success. The FIT group proposes a new management algorithm for current ITI (without emicizumab) and a hypothetical new approach with the availability of emicizumab. As there are no published data regarding the concomitant use of emicizumab and FVIII for ITI, the FIT Expert group encourages the undertaking of properly conducted prospective studies to explore these approaches further.

Bioengineered molecules for the management of haemophilia: Promise and remaining challenges

Recombinant DNA technology has led to accelerating introduction of novel therapeutics for the treatment of haemophilia. This technology has driven the development of recombinant clotting factors, extended half-life clotting factors, alternative biologics to promote haemostasis and enabled the launch of the gene therapy era for haemophilia. At the core of this technology is the ability to study the structure and function of the native molecules and to apply rational bioengineering to overcome limitations to the existing therapies. Through the study of haemophilia-causing mutations, site-directed mutagenesis, detailed structural models and a wide repertoire of animal models, new bioengineering strategies are helping overcome some of the remaining limitations and challenges of traditional clotting factor concentrates. Some of these bioengineering strategies are now being partnered with improvements in vectorology leading to the first wave of successful gene therapy approaches. This study will review past and present bioengineered molecules that are advancing care for haemophilia as well as novel approaches that promise to continue to improve care and outcomes for patients with haemophilia.

Modern Treatments of Haemophilia: Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses and Future Directions

BACKGROUND

Cost is currently one of the most important aspects in haemophilia care. Factor concentrates absorb more than 90% of healthcare direct costs of haemophilia care, and the debate regarding the high cost of haemophilia treatments and their different use across different countries is increasing.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review cost-effectiveness analyses conducted on treatment options in haemophilia, focusing on their results and their strengths and limitations; to highlight the possible issues associated with economic evaluations of new treatment options.

METHODS

Electronic searches in PubMed and EMBASE were performed to retrieve papers published between November 2015 and September 2017 to update the previous review of economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments by Drummond et al. Reference lists of included articles and reviews were examined for relevant studies, which were assessed for their quality and their empirical results.

RESULTS

Twenty-six relevant economic analyses were identified; 15 (57.7%) were conducted in patients with haemophilia with inhibitors while 11 (42.3%) involved patients without inhibitors. There were methodological variations among the included studies, and differences in the treatment schemes make a comparative assessment of interventions for patients with haemophilia difficult. Only immune tolerance induction showed consistent results in its cost-saving profile compared with the treatment with bypassing agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments are increasing, but the identification of general cost-effectiveness trends is still difficult in these studies. We are now facing a new era in haemophilia management with a soaring need for high-quality economic evaluations, performed through proactive collaboration between clinical experts, budget holders and health economists.

Innovative Approaches for Immune Tolerance to Factor VIII in the Treatment of Hemophilia A

Hemophilia A (coagulation factor VIII deficiency) is a debilitating genetic disorder that is primarily treated with intravenous replacement therapy. Despite a variety of factor VIII protein formulations available, the risk of developing anti-dug antibodies (“inhibitors”) remains. Overall, 20–30% of patients with severe disease develop inhibitors. Current clinical immune tolerance induction protocols to eliminate inhibitors are not effective in all patients, and there are no prophylactic protocols to prevent the immune response. New experimental therapies, such as gene and cell therapies, show promising results in pre-clinical studies in animal models of hemophilia. Examples include hepatic gene transfer with viral vectors, genetically engineered regulatory T cells (Treg), in vivo Treg induction using immune modulatory drugs, and maternal antigen transfer. Furthermore, an oral tolerance protocol is being developed based on transgenic lettuce plants, which suppressed inhibitor formation in hemophilic mice and dogs. Hopefully, some of these innovative approaches will reduce the risk of and/or more effectively eliminate inhibitor formation in future treatment of hemophilia A.