When is enough … enough? Developing consensus of definition of failure of immune tolerance induction in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors

Understanding the evolution of coverage policies for prophylaxis treatments of hemophilia A without inhibitors: a payer Delphi panel

BACKGROUND: The landscape for hemophilia A prophylaxis is rapidly expanding from factor VIII replacement therapy to include novel treatments such as nonfactor replacement therapies that may enhance coagulation (e.g., emicizumab) or inhibit anticoagulant pathways (e.g., fitusiran and concizumab). For payers, this expansion presents challenges in balancing well-established treatments with new options that cost more and have lesser known real-world safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate likely coverage practices for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies among U.S. payers given evolving real-world data on safety and efficacy. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted with representatives of U.S. commercial health plans who had considerable expertise in managing populations of patients with hemophilia. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; round 2 involved an online discussion about the aggregated results from round 1; and round 3 allowed participants to revise their responses from round 1 based on insights gained during round 2. Questions elicited ratings, rankings, and estimates on access restrictions based on given safety and efficacy information for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies. Consensus was reached if ≥ 74% of panelists (14 of 19) were within 1 SD of the median group estimate during round 3. RESULTS: 19 Payers participated in the research. Among them, 94% dealt with commercial insurance, 94% with Medicare, and 81% with Medicaid; 79% had spent ≥ 5 years in their current role. Panelists reported limited access restrictions on hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies; the most common restrictions were prior authorization (n = 16, 84%) and quantity level limits (n = 13, 67%). Tiering and step therapy were reported by 7 respondents (39%). Respondents agreed that there was an 80% median likelihood that ≥ 9 additional patients with any safety event (e.g., thrombotic event, death) per year would trigger access restrictions, with the median likelihood of restrictions increasing to 95% for another ≥ 10 patients with safety events per year. Respondents also agreed that > 5 thrombotic events requiring treatment per patient per year would have a 98% median likelihood of leading to access restrictions and that ≥ 5 years of real-world safety and efficacy data would be highly likely (95% median likelihood) to affect coverage decisions. Noncoverage was highly unlikely (ranked fifth or sixth of 6 by 14 respondents), as was no restriction-coverage parity (ranked sixth of 6 by 10 respondents). All else being equal, cost continues to affect access policies, with respondents agreeing that a 13%-30% difference in net cost may lead to preferred formulary treatment for a drug with superior efficacy and noninferior safety, inferior efficacy and noninferior safety, or noninferior efficacy and inferior safety. CONCLUSIONS: Payers prefer treatments with well-understood efficacy, safety, and cost over newer treatments with uncertain long-term effects. Relatively unrestricted access to legacy and new hemophilia A prophylaxis will likely continue unless additional real-world safety concerns or major cost differences emerge. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this study was provided by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, which was involved in study concept and design. Graf, Tuly, Harley, and Pednekar are employees of PRECISIONheor, a research consultancy to the health and life sciences industries that was contracted by Takeda to conduct this study and write the manuscript. Batt served as a consultant on this project through PRECISIONheor.

Experience of Immune Tolerance Induction Therapy for Hemophilia A Patients with Inhibitors from a Single Center in India

The availability of clotting factor concentrates of both factor VIII and factor IX have improved hemophilia treatment to a great extent. Many more improvements like physiotherapy, and comprehensive care are needed to give better care. One important complication that occurs, but is often set aside is the development of inhibitors. When an inhibitor develops in a patient of severe hemophilia then the care becomes more difficult and expensive. Eradication of the inhibitor is possible by Immune tolerance induction (ITI), this paper explains some important essential factors and practical issues during my experience with ITI.

Clinical evaluation of bleeds and response to haemostatic treatment in patients with acquired haemophilia: A global expert consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Acquired haemophilia (AH) is a rare bleeding disorder with significant morbidity and mortality. Most patients initially present to physicians without experience of the disease, delaying diagnosis and potentially worsening outcomes. Existing guidance in AH is limited to clinical opinion of few experts and does not address monitoring bleeds in specific anatomical locations.

AIM

Derive consensus from a large sample of experts around the world in monitoring bleeding patients with AH.

METHODS

Using the Delphi methodology, a structured survey, designed to derive consensus on how to monitor bleeding patients with AH, was developed by a steering committee for completion by a group of haematologists with an interest in AH. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement with a given survey statement. After three rounds of survey refinement, a final list of consensus statements was compiled.

RESULTS

Thirty-six global specialists in AH participated. The participants spanned 20 countries and had treated a median of 12.0 (range, 1-50) patients with AH within the preceding 5 years. Consensus was achieved in all items after three survey rounds. In addition to statements on general management of bleeding patients, consensus statements in the following areas were presented: urinary tract, gastrointestinal tract, muscles, skin, joints, nose, pharynx, mouth, intracranial and postpartum.

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we present consensus statements derived from a broad sample of global specialists to address monitoring of location-specific bleeds and evaluating efficacy of bleeding treatment in patients with AH. These statements could be applied in practice by treating physicians and validated by individual population surveys.

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.

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.