Adult haemophilia A patients with inhibitors: successful immune tolerance induction with a single FVIII/VWF product

Hemophilia A with inhibitor: Immune tolerance induction (ITI) in the mirror of time

Inhibitor (neutralizing antibodies) development remains the most significant complication in patients with severe congenital hemophilia A receiving exogenous factor VIII (FVIII). Although our understanding of the pathophysiology of inhibitor development has advanced, the knowledge gained has not yet translated into a robust decline in incidence, with the overall risk remaining at ∼30%. Immune Tolerance Induction (ITI) is the only current method to successfully eradicate an inhibitor and achieve long-term tolerance. Although current practice utilizes a wide variety of ITI regimens, identification of an optimal regimen has not emerged. Over the last decade, the number of replacement products available in hemophilia has greatly expanded. The cumulative evidence with each product for use in ITI is often lacking. Most recently emicizumab, a humanized monoclonal bi-specific antibody that substitutes for the scaffolding effect of FVIIIa was approved; this agent prevents bleeding in both inhibitor and non-inhibitor patients. The use of emicizumab will bring about a new era in care that will require clinicians to challenge current practice paradigms including use and administration of ITI. This review will summarize the main clinical ITI data and practices for patients with severe congenital hemophilia A with inhibitors (CHAwI) over the last four decades and will highlight current studies in the field, with attention to open questions.

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.

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.

The burden of inhibitors in haemophilia patients

The burden of disease in haemophilia patients has wide ranging implications for the family and to society. There is evidence that having a current inhibitor increases the risk of morbidity and mortality. Morbidity is increased by the inability to treat adequately and its consequent disabilities, which then equates to a poor quality of life compared with non-inhibitor patients. The societal cost of care, or `burden of inhibitors', increases with the ongoing presence of an inhibitor. Therefore, it is clear that successful eradication of inhibitors by immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the single most important milestone one can achieve in an inhibitor patient. The type of factor VIII (FVIII) product used in ITI regimens varies worldwide. Despite ongoing debate, there is in vitro and retrospective clinical evidence to support the use of plasma-derived VWF-containing FVIII concentrates in ITI regimens in order to achieve early and high inhibitor eradication success rates.

Comorbidities and inhibitors in adult patients with haemophilia: issues, costs and management strategies

Along with greater life expectancy in patients with haemophilia has been an increase in associated haemophilia-related (arthropathy, osteoporosis, viral infections) and age-related (cardiovascular disease, renal disease, cancer and others) comorbidities, many of which are only just emerging as the population ages. At present, experience in managing these comorbidities is limited. As the demographic shift continues, haemophilia care centres can expect to encounter more patients with greater levels of complexity. In the absence of evidence-based information to guide the management of adult patients with haemophilia, it is important that the scientific position be reviewed on a regular basis. To this end, several topics relevant to the clinical management of adult patients with haemophilia were examined in a symposium entitled Comorbidities and inhibitors in adult patients with haemophilia: issues, costs and management strategies held on 11 February 2015 in Helsinki, Finland, in conjunction with the 8th Annual Congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders. This article is a summary of that event.

Anti-A2 and anti-A1 domain antibodies are potential predictors of immune tolerance induction outcome in children with hemophilia A

BACKGROUND

Hemophilia A (HA) is a congenital bleeding disorder resulting from factor VIII deficiency. The most serious complication of HA management is the appearance of inhibitory antibodies (Abs) against injected FVIII concentrates. To eradicate inhibitors, immune tolerance induction (ITI) is usually attempted, but it fails in up to 30% of cases. Currently, no undisputed predictive marker of ITI outcome is available to facilitate the clinical decision.

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictive markers of ITI efficacy.

METHODS

The isotypic and epitopic repertoires of inhibitory Abs were analyzed in plasma samples collected before ITI initiation from 15 children with severe HA and high-titer inhibitors, and their levels were compared in the two outcome groups (ITI success [n = 7] and ITI failure [n = 8]). The predictive value of these candidate biomarkers and of the currently used indicators (inhibitor titer and age at ITI initiation, highest inhibitor titer before ITI, and interval between inhibitor diagnosis and ITI initiation) was then compared by statistical analysis (Wilcoxon test and receiver receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve analysis).

RESULTS

Whereas current indicators seemed to fail in discriminating patients in the two outcome groups (ITI success or failure), anti-A1 and anti-A2 Ab levels before ITI initiation appeared to be good potential predictive markers of ITI outcome (P < 0.018). ROC analysis showed that anti-A1 and anti-A2 Abs were the best at discriminating between outcome groups (area under the ROC curve of > 0.875).

CONCLUSION

Anti-A1 and anti-A2 Abs could represent new promising tools for the development of ITI outcome prediction tests for children with severe HA.