The incidence of factorVIIIinhibitors in severe haemophilia A following a major switch from full‐length to B‐domain‐deleted factorVIII: a prospective cohort comparison

Anti-FVIII antibodies in Black and White hemophilia A subjects: do F8 haplotypes play a role?

The most common complication in hemophilia A (HA) treatment, affecting 25% to 30% of patients with severe HA, is the development of alloimmune inhibitors that foreclose the ability of infused factor VIII (FVIII) to participate in coagulation. Inhibitors confer significant pathology on affected individuals and present major complexities in their management. Inhibitors are more common in African American patients, and it has been hypothesized that this is a consequence of haplotype (H)-treatment product mismatch. F8 haplotypes H1 to H5 are defined by nonsynonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms encoding sequence variations at FVIII residues 1241, 2238, and 484. Haplotypes H2 to H5 are more prevalent in individuals with Black African ancestry, whereas 80% to 90% of the White population has the H1 haplotype. This study used an established multiplex fluorescence immunoassay to determine anti-FVIII antibody titers in plasma from 394 individuals with HA (188 Black, 206 White), measuring their binding to recombinant full-length H1 and H2 and B-domain-deleted (BDD) H1/H2, H3/H5, and H4 FVIII proteins. Inhibitor titers were determined using a chromogenic assay and linear B-cell epitopes characterized using peptide microarrays. FVIII-reactive antibodies were readily detected in most individuals with HA, with higher titers in those with a current inhibitor, as expected. Neither total nor inhibitory antibody titers correlated with F8 haplotype mismatches, and peptides with D1241E and M2238V polymorphisms did not comprise linear B-cell epitopes. Interestingly, compared with the full-length FVIII products, the BDD-FVIII proteins were markedly more reactive with plasma antibodies. The stronger immunoreactivity of BDD-FVIII suggests that B-domain removal might expose novel B-cell epitopes, perhaps through conformational rearrangements of FVIII domains.

Real pandemic world results of pharmacokinetic-tailored personalized prophylaxis of bleeds in Polish children and adolescents with severe hemophilia A

Introduction

In 2020, the new nationwide protocol of prophylaxis in Polish plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII) previously treated patients (PTPs) with severe hemophilia A (sHA) was introduced, resulting in the necessity of switching from pdFVIII to recombinant FVIII (octocog-alpha; rFVIII). The study aimed to: (1) assess the safety of switching from pdFVIII to rFVIII, (2) assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacokinetically based (PK-based) personalized prophylaxis in severe hemophilia A.

Patients and methods

151 children and adolescents receiving prophylaxis with a standard dose (40 U/kg 3 x weekly) of pdFVIII were included in this study. Annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and annualized joint bleeding rate (AJBR) were analyzed for all patients before enrollment. Using myPKFiT application, pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis followed by the selection of the optimal model of prophylaxis was performed in all patients. Two possible models of prophylaxis (standard-dose rFVIII versus PK-based rFVIII) were discussed, with parents leaving the choice to their decision. Parents reported all episodes of bleeds. Screening for inhibitor was performed every 3 months. ABR and AJBR were prospectively analyzed again after a minimum follow-up time of 26 weeks.

Results

141/151 (93.4%) patients completed the study. 34 patients decided to continue standard prophylaxis with rFVIII (Group I), whereas 107 were switched to PK-based prophylaxis (Group II). The risk of inhibitor development could be assessed in 137/151 (90.7%) patients. Only 2/137 (1.47%) patients (both on PK-based prophylaxis) developed low-titer inhibitor with its spontaneous elimination. The retrospective analysis of bleeds during the last 12 months of standard pdFVIII prophylaxis revealed that patients who decided to continue standard prophylaxis had historically lower ABR and AJBR than those who started PK-based personalized prophylaxis. After a minimum of 26 weeks, ABR and AJBR improved significantly in both groups. There was no significant difference in ABR and AJBR between Group I and Group II during the follow-up period. However, the rate of reduction of ABR and AJBR was higher in patients on PK-based personalized prophylaxis.

Conclusion

(1) Switching from pdFVIII to rFVIII (octocog-alpha) in PTPs with sHA is safe, (2) PK-based personalized prophylaxis may decrease ABR and AJBR in children and adolescents with sHA.

Using pharmacokinetics for tailoring prophylaxis in people with hemophilia switching between clotting factor products: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the current use of pharmacokinetics for tailoring prophylaxis in hemophilia patients switching between clotting factor products. Patients with hemophilia may require switching of clotting factor concentrates due to a variety of factors, but there have been perceived risks associated with switching, such as inhibitor development or suboptimal protection due to inadequate dosing while titrating treatment. Studies that look at patients switching from one clotting factor concentrate to another are categorized in terms of their primary and/or secondary objectives, notably biosimilarity and comparative pharmacokinetic studies and inhibitor development studies. Research on how best to switch concentrates with respect to dosing regimen are lacking, and currently a trial‐and‐error approach is used for dosing the new factor concentrate. In the future, studies looking at the predictability of pharmacokinetics (PK) of a new factor concentrate based on individual PK knowledge of the original factor concentrate may offer clinical benefit by providing a safer switching approach and protocol.

Practical aspects of extended half-life products for the treatment of haemophilia

Haemophilia A and haemophilia B are congenital X-linked bleeding disorders caused by deficiency of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) and IX (FIX), respectively. The preferred treatment option for patients with haemophilia is replacement therapy. For patients with severe disease, prophylactic replacement of coagulation factor is the treatment of choice; this has been shown to reduce arthropathy significantly, reduce the frequency of bleeds and improve patients' quality of life. Prophylaxis with standard recombinant factor requires regular intravenous infusion at least two (FIX) to three (FVIII) times a week. Recombinant FVIII and FIX products with an extended half-life are in development, or have been recently licensed. With reported mean half-life extensions of 1.5-1.8 times that of standard products for FVIII and 3-5 times that of standard products for FIX, these products have the potential to address many of the unmet needs of patients currently treated with standard factor concentrates. For example, they may encourage patients to switch from on-demand treatment to prophylaxis and improve the quality of life of patients receiving prophylaxis. Indeed, extended half-life products have the potential to reduce the burden of frequent intravenous injections, reducing the need for central venous lines in children, promote adherence, improve outcomes, potentially allow for more active lifestyles and, depending on the dosing regimen, increase factor trough levels. Members of the Zürich Haemophilia Forum convened for their 19th meeting to discuss the practicalities of incorporating new treatments into the management of people with haemophilia. This review of extended half-life products considers their introduction in haemophilia treatment, including the appropriate dose and schedule of infusions, laboratory monitoring, patient selection, safety considerations, and the economic aspects of care.

Factor VIII products and inhibitor development in previously treated patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia A: a systematic review

Essentials Data on product-related immunogenicity in previously treated haemophilia A patients is scarce. A systematic review and meta-analysis of all currently available evidence was conducted. The overall incidence rate was 2.06 per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval: 1.06-4.01). Some recombinant factor VIII products were associated with increased immunogenicity.

SUMMARY

Background Patients with severe hemophilia A who have been treated extensively with factor VIII products have a low but potentially serious risk of inhibitor development. It is unknown why these patients develop inhibitors, and data on product-related immunogenicity are scarce. Aims To summarize the currently available evidence on the relationship between inhibitor development and recombinant FVIII product type in previously treated patients (PTPs) with severe hemophilia A. Methods Longitudinal studies were included that reported on de novo inhibitor formation in patients with baseline FVIII activity levels of < 0.02 IU mL-1 who had been treated with FVIII for at least 50 days. Pooled incidence rates of inhibitor development according to product types were calculated with a random intercept Poisson regression model. Results Forty-one independent cohorts were included; 39 patients developed de novo inhibitors during 19 157 person-years of observation. The overall incidence rate was 2.06 per 1000 person-years, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.06-4.01. According to product type, the pooled incidence rates were 0.99 (95% CI 0.37-2.70) per 1000 person-years for patients treated with Advate, 5.86 (95% CI 0.25-134.92) per 1000 person-years for those treated with Kogenate/Helixate, 1.35 (95% CI 0.66-2.77) per 1000 person-years for those treated with Kogenate FS/Helixate NexGen, 12.05 (95% CI 1.53-94.78) per 1000 person-years for those treated with Refacto, and 4.64 (95% CI 0.82-26.43) per 1000 person-years for those treated with Refacto AF. Conclusion These results suggest that some products may be associated with increased immunogenicity. However, the low incidence of inhibitors in PTPs and the differences in study design may cause significant variation in estimates of risk.

Pharmacokinetic-based prediction of real-life dosing of extended half-life clotting factor concentrates on hemophilia

The improvement of clotting factor concentrates (CFCs) has undergone an impressive boost during the last six years. Since 2010, several new recombinant factor (rF)VIII/IX concentrates entered phase I/II/III clinical trials. The improvements are related to the culture of human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells, post-translational glycosylation, PEGylation, and co-expression of the fragment crystallizable (Fc) region of immunoglobulin (Ig)G1 or albumin genes in the manufacturing procedures. The extended half-life (EHL) CFCs allow an increase of the interval between bolus administrations during prophylaxis, a very important advantage for patients with difficulties in venous access. Although the inhibitor risk has not been fully established, phase III studies have provided standard prophylaxis protocols, which, compared with on-demand treatment, have achieved very low annualized bleeding rates (ABRs). The key pharmacokinetics (PK) parameter to tailor patient therapy is clearance, which is more reliable than the half-life of CFCs; the clearance considers the decay rate of the drug concentration-time profile, while the half-life considers only the half concentration of the drug at a given time. To tailor the prophylaxis of hemophilia patients in real-life, we propose two formulae (expressed in terms of the clearance, trough and dose interval between prophylaxis), respectively based on the one- and two-compartmental models (CMs), for the prediction of the optimal single dose of EHL CFCs. Once the data from the time decay of the CFCs are fitted by the one- or two-CMs after an individual PK analysis, such formulae provide to the treater the optimal trade-off among trough and time-intervals between boluses. In this way, a sufficiently long time-interval between bolus administration could be guaranteed for a wider class of patients, with a preassigned level of the trough. Finally, a PK approach using repeated dosing is discussed, and some examples with new EHL CFCs are shown.

Studies on drug switchability showed heterogeneity in methodological approaches: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several drugs share the same therapeutic indication, including those undergoing patent expiration. Concerns on the interchangeability are frequent in clinical practice, challenging the evaluation of switchability through observational research. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of observational studies on drug switchability to identify methodological strategies adopted to deal with bias and confounding.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (updated January 31, 2017) to identify studies evaluating switchability in terms of effectiveness/safety outcomes or compliance. Three reviewers independently screened studies extracting all characteristics. Strategies to address confounding, particularly previous drug use and switching reasons, were considered. All findings were summarized in descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies, published in the last 10 years, met the inclusion criteria. Epilepsy, cardiovascular, and rheumatology were the most frequently represented clinical areas. Seventy-five percent of the studies reported data on effectiveness/safety outcomes. The most frequent study design was cohort (65.6%) followed by case-control (21.9%) and self-controlled (12.5%). Case-control and case-crossover studies showed homogeneous methodological strategies to deal with bias and confounding. Among cohort studies, the confounding associated with previous drug use was addressed introducing variables in multivariate model (47.3%) or selecting only adherent patients (14.3%). Around 30% of cohort studies did not report reasons for switching. In the remaining 70%, clinical parameters or previous occurrence of outcomes was measured to identify switching connected with lack of effectiveness or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study represents a starting point for researchers and administrators who are approaching the investigation and assessment of issues related to interchangeability of drugs.

European principles of inhibitor management in patients with haemophilia

Background

In spite of recent major advances in the understanding and treatment of inhibitor development in patients with haemophilia, multidisciplinary management of many of these patients remains suboptimal and highly heterogenous across Europe.

Methods

Following a series of multidisciplinary meetings and a review of the literature, the European haemophilia community of health professionals and patients jointly defined practical optimum standards for ensuring and harmonizing treatment and care for patients with an inhibitor.

Results

Ten complementary principles for the management of inhibitors in haemophilia have been developed, emphasizing the importance and benefits of a centralized, multidisciplinary, expert and holistic approach.

Conclusions

This document will serve as a benchmark to improve the multidisciplinary and practical management of patients with inhibitor. Implementation and adherence to each of these principles should have a major positive impact on the management and outcomes of patients developing an inhibitor.

Emerging therapies for hemophilia: controversies and unanswered questions

Several new therapies for hemophilia have emerged in recent years. These strategies range from extended half-life factor replacement products and non-factor options with improved pharmacokinetic profiles to gene therapy aiming for phenotypic cure. While these products have the potential to change hemophilia care dramatically, several challenges and questions remain regarding broader applicability, long-term safety, and which option to pursue for each patient. Here, we review these emerging therapies with a focus on controversies and unanswered questions in each category.

Safety and Efficacy of B-domain Deleted Third Generation Recombinant Factor VIII (GreenGene F™) in Korean Patients with Hemophilia A: Data from a Post-marketing Surveillance Study

BACKGROUND

New B-domain deleted third generation recombinant factor VIII (FVIII; GreenGene F™, beroctocog alfa) was launched in 2010. We determined safety and efficacy of GreenGene F™ during routine clinical practice in patients with hemophilia A over a period of 12 months.

METHODS

From July 2010 to July 2014, a total of 136 hemophilia A patients were enrolled in a post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study. Among them, 134 patients were assessed for drug safety and 114 patients were analyzed for drug efficacy. Patients with differing hemophilia A severities and medical histories were monitored during 12 months of prophylactic and/or on-demand therapy.

RESULTS

Among 134 patients evaluated, 85 (63.4%) had severe hemophilia. Ninety-two received a total of 1,266,077 units for prophylaxis, and 42 received 516,491 units for bleeding episodes. Three patients developed inhibitors. In 112 previously treated patients, one patient (0.9%) developed inhibitor after intensive FVIII treatment for surgery. Among 22 previously untreated patients, inhibitors were observed in 2 infants (9.1%). Overall, there were a total of 47 adverse events (other than inhibitors) of all types in 30 patients (22.4%), 11 in 10 patients (7.5%) of which were considered showing serious adverse events (SAEs); most of which were hemorrhages at different sites. None of the SAEs were judged as product related. An excellent/good efficacy rate of 91.3% for hemostasis and 89.4% for hemorrhage prevention was recorded.

CONCLUSION

The results of this PMS study support the use of GreenGene F™ as safe and efficacious in hemorrhage prevention and treatment of hemophilia A. These results are consistent with the findings from previously published GreenGene F™ studies.

Prospective surveillance study of haemophilia A patients switching from moroctocog alfa or other factor VIII products to moroctocog alfa albumin-free cell culture (AF-CC) in usual care settings

This prospective, open-label, postauthorisation safety surveillance study assessed clinically significant inhibitor development in patients with severe haemophilia A transitioning from moroctocog alfa or other factor VIII (FVIII) replacement products to reformulated moroctocog alfa (AF-CC). Males aged12 years with severe haemophilia A (FVIII:C) < 1 IU/dl), > 150 exposure days (EDs) to recombinant or plasma-derived FVIII products, and no detectable inhibitor at screening were enrolled. Primary end point was the incidence of clinically significant FVIII inhibitor development. Secondary end points included annualised bleeding rate (ABR), less-than-expected therapeutic effect (LETE), and FVIII recovery. Patients were assigned to one of two cohorts based on whether they were transitioning to moroctocog alfa (AF-CC) from moroctocog alfa (cohort 1; n=146) or from another recombinant or plasma-derived FVIII product (cohort 2; n=62). Mean number of EDs on study was 94 (range, 1–139). Six positive FVIII inhibitor results, as determined by local laboratories, were reported in four patients; none were confirmed by a central laboratory, no inhibitor-related clinical manifestations were reported, and all anti-FVIII antibody assays were negative. Median ABRs were 23.4 and 3.4 in patients categorised at baseline as following on-demand and prophylactic regimens, respectively; 86.5 % of bleeding episodes resolved after one infusion. LETE incidence was 0.06 % and 0.19 % in the on-demand and prophylaxis settings, respectively. FVIII recovery remained constant throughout the study. No new safety concerns were identified. This study found no increased risk of clinically significant FVIII inhibitor development in patients transitioning from moroctocog alfa or other FVIII replacement products to moroctocog alfa (AF-CC).

Kreuth IV: European consensus proposals for treatment of haemophilia with coagulation factor concentrates

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes recommendations relating to haemophilia therapy arising from discussions among experts from 36 European countries during the 'Kreuth IV' meeting in May 2016.

AIM

The objective of the meeting was for experts in the field of haemophilia from across Europe to draft resolutions regarding current issues relating to the treatment of haemophilia.

RESULTS

Hospitals providing clinical care for people with haemophilia and related disorders are strongly recommended to seek formal designation as either European Haemophilia Treatment Centres (EHTC) or European Haemophilia Comprehensive Care Centres (EHCCC). There should be agreed national protocols or guidelines on management of the ageing patient with haemophilia. The minimum consumption of factor VIII and IX concentrate in any country should be 4 IU and 0.5 IU per capita of general population respectively. Treatment for hepatitis C with direct-acting antiviral agents should be provided to all people with haemophilia on a priority basis. Genotype analysis should be offered to all patients with severe haemophilia. Genetic counselling, when given, should encompass the recommendation that genetic relatives of the affected person be advised to seek genetic counselling. People with inhibitors should have access to bypassing agents, immune tolerance and elective surgery. National or regional tenders for factor concentrates are encouraged. Outcome data including health related quality of life should be collected. Treatment with extended half-life factors should be individualized and protection against bleeding should be improved by increasing trough levels. Steps should be taken to understand and minimize the risk of inhibitor development.

CONCLUSION

It is hoped that these recommendations will help to foster equity of haemophilia care throughout Europe.

Large scale studies assessing anti-factor VIII antibody development in previously untreated haemophilia A: what has been learned, what to believe and how to learn more

Minimizing the risk of inhibitor development by acting on modifiable risk factors remains a sensible goal for treatment optimization in haemophilia A. By critically appraising published studies assessing inhibitor development, this review addresses the role of studies in previously untreated patients (PUPs) for establishing the immunogenicity of new concentrates, suggest novel research design to be adopted in future studies and discuss clinical practice implications of the reported differential immunogenicity of Kogenate Bayer and Advate factor VIII concentrates. Three considerations are relevant here: (i) all of the existing concentrates, when tested following the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee recommendation, were shown to be safe; as a consequence, (ii) when considering using any newly introduced product, one should be aware that it could, in future, turn out to be as immunogenic as Kogenate Bayer, and (iii) at the population level, it might be wiser not to use Kogenate Bayer in PUPs, if the choice is against Advate. When presenting the risk of developing inhibitors to the individual patient (or their family), the message remains that the risk can be as high as 40%, without any efficient instrument to predict individual inhibitor risk. Patients should be invited to enrol into a randomized registry trial, including random assignment to trials with new investigational products.

Natural history and clinical characteristics of inhibitors in previously treated haemophilia A patients: a case series

BACKGROUND

Development of inhibitors is the most serious complication in haemophilia A treatment. The assessment of risk for inhibitor formation in new or modified factor concentrates is traditionally performed in previously treated patients (PTPs). However, evidence on risk factors for and natural history of inhibitors has been generated mostly in previously untreated patients (PUPs). The purpose of this study was to examine cases of de novo inhibitors in PTPs reported in the scientific literature and to the EUropean HAemophilia Safety Surveillance (EUHASS) programme, and explore determinants and course of inhibitor development.

METHODS

We used a case series study design and developed a case report form to collect patient level data; including detection, inhibitor course, treatment, factor VIII products used and events that may trigger inhibitor development (surgery, vaccination, immune disorders, malignancy, product switch).

RESULTS

We identified 19 publications that reported 38 inhibitor cases and 45 cases from 31 EUHASS centres. Individual patient data were collected for 55/83 (66%) inhibitor cases out of 12 330 patients. The median (range) peak inhibitor titre was 4.4 (0.5-135.0), the proportion of transient inhibitors was 33% and only two cases of 12 undergoing immune tolerance induction failed this treatment. In the two months before inhibitor development, surgery was reported in nine (22%) cases, and high intensity treatment periods reported in seven (17%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

By studying the largest cohort of inhibitor development in PTPs assembled to date, we showed that inhibitor development in PTPs, is on average, a milder event than in PUPs.

Partnering to change the world for people with haemophilia: 6(th) Haemophilia Global Summit, Prague, Czech Republic, 24-26(th) September 2015

The 6(th) Haemophilia Global Summit was held in Prague, Czech Republic, in September 2015. The programme was designed by an independent Scientific Steering Committee of haemophilia experts and aimed to share optimal management strategies for haemophilia at all life stages, explore recent potential advances in the management of haemophilia A and B and discuss challenges in haemophilia care. In this supplement from the meeting, Dan Hart reviews the lessons that can be learnt from cost-constrained environments with regard to improving care for people with haemophilia globally. Sébastien Lobet discusses the importance of physical activity for optimising care and Roseline d'Oiron and Jan Blatný consider the role of real-world data in understanding the effect of treatment in a clinical setting over the long term and the true impact of treatment on the day-to-day life of the patient. Gili Kenet addresses the current challenges relating to the optimal management of prophylaxis, and Gerry Dolan and Cedric Hermans discuss the value of pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters in informing treatment decisions. Cedric Hermans and Valérie Libotte explore the importance of considering social and occupational development factors as an integral part of haemophilia care, and Jan Astermark reviews key strategies to predict and prevent inhibitor development.

The current state of adverse event reporting in hemophilia

INTRODUCTION

Replacement of the missing clotting factor is the mainstay of hemophilia treatment. Whilst historically many hemophilia patients were infected with blood-borne viruses transmitted via plasma-derived products, nowadays the formation of alloantibodies against the missing clotting factor is the main adverse event of treatment. Areas covered: This paper provides an overview of the current national and international adverse event reporting systems, what these surveillance schemes taught us about side effects of the products presently in use, and elaborates on how to adapt these systems to the challenges we face with the changing treatment landscape. Expert commentary: Treatment of inherited bleeding disorders was accompanied by severe complications in the past, resulting in major morbidity and mortality. Current products are much safer, but still require monitoring via efficient safety surveillance systems. Adverse events are reported in national and international systems. With many new products entering the market, as well as non-factor replacement therapies, new safety issues may arise. It is important to identify potential adverse events early by making surveillance systems suitable to pick up unknown or unexpected effects, and to recognize and communicate patterns of adverse events rapidly.

Safety surveillance in haemophilia and allied disorders

The introduction of clotting factor concentrates has transformed the lives of persons with inherited bleeding disorders. With the use of prophylactic treatment, it is now possible to prevent bleeding in these individuals. The early concentrates were contaminated with the HIV and hepatitis C viruses (HCV) and resulted in major morbidity and mortality in the recipients. Current products are much safer, especially in terms of infectious agents, but other adverse events such as alloantibodies (inhibitors), allergic reactions and thrombotic risks remain of concern. Approximately 30% of previously untreated patients with severe haemophilia A develop inhibitors, making this the most important issue in haemophilia care today. Recently, it was suggested that one of the most commonly used concentrates was associated with a higher inhibitor risk, but this was not supported by the evidence from all studies. Good safety surveillance systems are essential for all diseases and products but are particularly so in the group of individuals with inherited bleeding disorders treated with clotting factor concentrates who have suffered disproportionately from the adverse effects of their treatment. National and multinational systems are now in place to allow reporting of adverse events in patients with inherited bleeding disorders. All clinicians treating individuals with inherited bleeding disorders should prospectively report adverse events to treatment even if they are believed to be common and well recognized.

Gene therapy for hemophilia: past, present and future

After numerous preclinical studies demonstrated consistent success in large and small animal models, gene therapy has finally seen initial signs of clinically meaningful success. In a landmark study, Nathwani and colleagues reported sustained factor (F)IX expression in individuals with severe hemophilia B following adeno-associated virus (AAV)-mediated in vivo FIX gene transfer. As the next possible treatment-changing paradigm in hemophilia care, gene therapy may provide patients with sufficient hemostatic improvement to achieve the World Federation of Hemophilia's aspirational goal of "integration of opportunities in all aspects of life… equivalent to someone without a bleeding disorder." Although promising momentum supports the potential of gene therapy to replace protein-based therapeutics for hemophilia, several obstacles remain. The largest challenges appear to be overcoming the cellular immune responses to the AAV capsid; preexisting AAV neutralizing antibodies, which immediately exclude approximately 50% of the target population; and the ability to scale-up vector manufacturing for widespread applicability. Additional obstacles specific to hemophilia A (HA) include designing a vector cassette to accommodate a larger cDNA; avoiding development of inhibitory antibodies; and, perhaps the greatest difficulty to overcome, ensuring adequate expression efficiency. This review discusses the relevance of gene therapy to the hemophilia disease state, previous research progress, the current landscape of clinical trials, and considerations for promoting the future availability of gene therapy for hemophilia.

Inhibitor development in non-severe haemophilia across Europe

Evidence about inhibitor formation in non-severe haemophilia and the potential role for clotting factor concentrate type is scant. It was the aim of this study to report inhibitor development in non-severe haemophilia patients enrolled in the European Haemophilia Safety Surveillance (EUHASS) study. Inhibitors are reported quarterly and total treated patients annually. Incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated according to diagnosis and concentrate used. Between 1-10-2008 and 31-12-2012, 68 centres reported on 7,969 patients with non-severe haemophilia A and 1,863 patients with non-severe haemophilia B. For haemophilia A, 37 inhibitors occurred in 8,622 treatment years, resulting in an inhibitor rate of 0.43/100 treatment years (95% CI 0.30-0.59). Inhibitors occurred at a median age of 35 years, after a median of 38 exposure days (EDs; P25-P75: 20-80); with 72% occurring within the first 50 EDs. In haemophilia B, one inhibitor was detected in 2,149 treatment years, resulting in an inhibitor rate of 0.05/100 years (95% CI 0.001-0.26). This inhibitor developed at the age of six years, after six EDs. The rate of inhibitors appeared similar across recombinant and plasma derived factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates. Rates for individual concentrates could not be calculated at this stage due to low number of events. In conclusion, inhibitors in non-severe haemophilia occur three times more frequently than in previously treated patients with severe haemophilia at a rate of 0.43/100 patient years (haemophilia A) and 0.05/100 years (haemophilia B). Although the majority of inhibitors developed in the first 50 EDs, inhibitor development continued with increasing exposure to FVIII.

Profile of efraloctocog alfa and its potential in the treatment of hemophilia A

Hemophilia care has improved dramatically over the past 50 years, evolving from plasma concentrates, to purified plasma proteins, to recombinant clotting factors. These collective developments allowed for home delivery of on-demand and prophylactic treatment, resulting in the reduction of hemophilia morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Although efficacious in treating bleeding, conventional factor products’ half-lives require frequent venipuncture, which remains a significant burden to patients. Despite the remarkable advances in hemophilia care, no improvements have, until now, been made to the pharmacokinetic properties of factor products. Multiple strategies have more recently been employed to generate novel bioengineered products that, with great hope, represent the next wave of progress in hemophilia care. The use of these products will undoubtedly raise important discussion about choosing conventional factor over new long-acting factor products. Incorporation of these therapies into clinical care is accompanied by unanswered safety questions that will likely be evaluated only in postmarketing surveillance analysis. Further, these products may change current treatment paradigms with unclear cost repercussions and feasibility. This paper will review efraloctocog alfa (FVIII-Fc) and its role in the treatment of hemophilia A.