Spanish Consensus Guidelines on prophylaxis with bypassing agents in patients with haemophilia and 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.

Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II)

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.

Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II)

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.

Efficacy/effectiveness and safety of emicizumab prophylaxis of people with hemophilia A: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emicizumab is a monoclonal antibody approved for prophylaxis against bleeds for people with hemophilia A (PwHA). A systematic review was conducted evaluating the efficacy/effectiveness and the safety of emicizumab as prophylaxis for PwHA compared to prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII) or bypassing agents (BPA), respectively in patients without and with inhibitors.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Database-directed search strategies were performed in Aug/26/2022 and updated in Mar/16/2023. Studies evaluating the prophylaxis with emicizumab versus prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA in PwHA without or with inhibitors, respectively, were selected by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Annualized bleeding rates for total treated bleeding events (ABR-all) were evaluated by meta-analysis. The quality of studies and certainty of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included. The standard mean differences for ABR-all were -0.6 (95%CI -1.0 to -0.2, p-value = 0.0002), among PwHA without inhibitors, and -1.7 (95%CI -2.4 to -0.9, p-value <0.00001), among PwHA with inhibitors. However, there was moderate heterogeneity in both meta-analyses. The most frequent adverse event was injection site reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Emicizumab prophylaxis was superior in reducing the ABR-all when compared with prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA.

Economic Evaluation of Immune Tolerance Induction in Children With Severe Hemophilia A and High-Responding Inhibitors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis With Emicizumab

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with emicizumab in PsHAhri on ITI in Brazil.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness modeling analysis was used to estimate the costs per PsHAhri on ITI and the number of prevented bleedings from undertaking one intervention (prophylaxis with BpA) over another (prophylaxis with emicizumab), based on the Brazilian Ministry of Health perspective. Costs of ITI with recombinant FVIII, prophylaxis with BpA or emicizumab, and treated bleeding episodes with BpA costs were evaluated for PsHAhri who had ITI success or failure. This study was conducted with the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (payer).

RESULTS

During ITI, prophylaxis with BpA cost US $924 666/PsHAhri/ITI, whereas prophylaxis with emicizumab cost US $488 785/PsHAhri/ITI. During ITI, there was an average of 9.32 bleeding episodes/PsHAhri/ITI when BpA were used as prophylaxis and 0.67 bleeding/PsHAhri/ITI when emicizumab was used. By univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis, emicizumab remained dominant whichever variable was modified.

CONCLUSION

In this study, prophylaxis with emicizumab during ITI is a dominant option compared with prophylaxis with BpA during ITI.

Determinants of successful immune tolerance induction in hemophilia A: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) aims to eradicate anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies (inhibitors) in persons with hemophilia A. However, this burdensome treatment fails in 10% to 40%. To estimate the chance of ITI success in clinical decision making, it is important to identify the predictors of ITI success.

Objectives

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the current evidence on determinants of ITI outcome in persons with hemophilia A.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials, cohort, or case-control studies reporting on the predictors for ITI outcome in persons with hemophilia A. The main outcome was ITI success. Methodological quality was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, rating as high if ≥11 of 13 criteria were met. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for ITI success were calculated for each determinant. ITI success was defined as negative inhibitor titer (<0.6 BU/mL), FVIII recovery ≥66% of expected, and FVIII half-life ≥6 hours in 16 (59.3%) studies.

Results

We included 27 studies, involving 1,734 participants. Methodological quality of 6 (22.2%) studies (418 participants) was rated as high. Twenty different determinants were assessed. Historical peak titer ≤100 BU/mL (compared with >100 BU/mL, OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.1), pre-ITI titer ≤10 BU/mL (compared with >10 BU/mL, OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3), and peak titer during ITI ≤100 BU/mL (compared with >100 BU/mL, OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8) were associated with a higher chance of ITI success.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that determinants related to the inhibitor titer are associated with ITI success.

Time between inhibitor detection and start of immune tolerance induction: Association with outcome in the BrazIT study

BACKGROUND

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the treatment of choice for eradication of anti-factor VIII (FVIII) neutralizing alloantibodies (inhibitors) in people with inherited hemophilia A and high-responding inhibitor (PwHA-HRi). The association between ITI outcome and time elapsed between inhibitor detection and start of ITI (∆tinhi-ITI ) is debatable.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate this association among a large cohort of severe PwHA-HRi.

METHODS

Severe (factor VIII activity level <1%) PwHA-HRi on ITI (n = 142) were enrolled in 15 hemophilia treatment centers. PwHA-HRi were treated according to the Brazilian ITI Protocol. ITI outcomes were defined as success (i.e., recovered responsiveness to exogenous FVIII) and failure (i.e., no responsiveness to exogenous FVIII and requirement of bypassing agents to control bleeding).

RESULTS

Median ages at inhibitor detection and at ITI start were 3.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.6-8.1) and 6.9 years [IQR, 2.6-20.1), respectively. PwHA-HRi were stratified according to ∆tinhi-ITI quartiles: first (0.0-0.6 year), second (>0.6-1.7 year), third (>1.7-9.2 years), and fourth quartile (>9.2-24.5 years). The overall success rate was 65.5% (93/142), with no difference among first, second, third, and fourth quartiles (62.9%, 69.4%, 58.3%, and 71.4%, respectively) even after adjusting the analyses for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, delayed ITI start is not associated with failure of ITI in PwHA-HRi. Therefore, ITI should be offered for these patients, regardless of the time elapsed between the detection of inhibitor and the ITI start.

[Treatment of haemophilia: From replacement to gene therapy]

Haemophilia A and B are congenital bleeding disorders characterized by missing or defective factor VIII or factor IX, respectively. Factor replacement therapy has been the gold standard for prophylaxis and treatment of bleeding complications. However, the inconvenience of regular intravenous administration, along with progression of arthropathy and development of inhibitors has driven the need for alternative treatment options, such as extended half-life products, non-factor coagulation products, such as subcutaneous emicizumab, blocking natural anticoagulants (rebalancing haemostatic agents) and gene therapy, which have been useful to control bleeding or are currently under late-phase clinical investigation.

Predictors of the outcome of immune tolerance induction in patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors: The Brazilian Immune Tolerance (BrazIT) Study protocol

The development of inhibitors is the main complication of haemophilia A (HA) treatment. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the treatment of choice for inhibitor eradication. We describe the methodology of the Brazilian Immune Tolerance Induction (BrazIT) Study, aimed to identify clinical, genetic, and immune biomarkers associated with response to ITI and inhibitor recurrence. This cohort study includes people with HA (PwHA) and inhibitors (a) who require bypassing agents to treat and/or prevent bleeding, and (b) who are at any stage of ITI treatment. Patients are included in each haemophilia treatment centre (HTC). Factor VIII (FVIII) and inhibitor assessments are performed at local laboratories of each HTC. The ITI regimen followed the national protocol of the Brazilian Ministry of Health. All PwHA starts with low-dose ITI (50 IU/kg three times weekly); high-dose regimen (100 IU/kg daily) is used if there is lack of response to the low-dose ITI. Outcomes are classified as total or partial success, and failure. Standardized case report forms with clinical, laboratory, and treatment data are collected from medical files and interviews. Blood samples are collected for genetic and immune biomarkers at the time of inclusion in the study and at the end of ITI. The study is ongoing and, currently, 202/250 (80.8%) PwHA from 15 HTCs have been included. BrazIT Study is the largest cohort of PwHA and inhibitor under treatment with the same ITI regimen reported to date. This study is likely to contribute with novel predictors of ITI response.

Expert opinion on the UK standard of care for haemophilia patients with inhibitors: a modified Delphi consensus study

Background and Aims:

Despite advances in haemophilia care, inhibitor development remains a significant complication. Although viable treatment options exist, there is some divergence of opinion in the appropriate standard approach to care and goals of treatment. The aim of this study was to assess consensus on United Kingdom (UK) standard of care for child and adult haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

Methods:

A modified Delphi study was conducted using a two-round online survey. A haemophilia expert steering committee and published literature informed the Round 1 questionnaire. Invited participants included haematologists, haemophilia nurses and physiotherapists who had treated at least one haemophilia patient with inhibitors in the past 5 years. Consensus for 6-point Likert scale questions was pre-defined as ⩾70% participants selecting 1–2 (disagreement) or 5–6 (agreement).

Results:

In all, 46.7% and 35.9% questions achieved consensus in Rounds 1 (n = 41) and 2 (n = 34), respectively. Consensus was reached on the importance of improving quality of life (QoL) and reaching clinical goals such as bleed prevention, eradication of inhibitors and pain management. There was agreement on criteria constituting adequate/inadequate responses to immune tolerance induction (ITI) and the appropriate factor VIII dose to address suboptimal ITI response. Opinions varied on treatment aims for adults and children/adolescents, when to offer prophylaxis with bypassing agents and expectations of prophylaxis. Consensus was also lacking on appropriate treatment for mild/moderate patients with inhibitors.

Conclusion:

UK healthcare professionals appear to be aligned on the clinical goals and role of ITI when managing haemophilia patients with inhibitors, although novel treatment developments may require reassessment of these goals. Lack of consensus on prophylaxis with bypassing agents and management of mild/moderate cases identifies a need for further research to establish more comprehensive, evidence-based treatment guidance, particularly for those patients who are unable/prefer not to receive non-factor therapies.

Costs of the management of hemophilia A with inhibitors in Spain

Introduction

Emicizumab is a first-in-class monoclonal antibody, recently authorized for the treatment of hemophilia A with inhibitors. This study aims to estimate the direct and indirect costs of the management of hemophilia A with inhibitors, in adult and pediatric patients, including the prophylaxis with emicizumab.

Methods

We calculated the costs of the on-demand and prophylactic treatments with bypassing agents (activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant activated factor VII) and the emicizumab prophylaxis, from the societal perspective, over 1 year. The study considered direct healthcare costs (drugs, visits, tests, and hospitalizations), direct non-healthcare costs (informal caregivers), and indirect costs (productivity loss). Data were obtained from a literature review and were validated by an expert group. Costs were expressed in 2019 euros.

Results

Our results showed that the annual costs of the prophylactic treatment per patient varied between €543,062.99 and €821,415.77 for adults, and €182,764.43 and €319,826.59 for children, while on-demand treatment was €532,706.84 and €789,341.91 in adults, and €167,523.05 and €238,304.71 in pediatric patients. In relation to other prophylactic therapies, emicizumab showed the lowest costs, with up to a 34% and 43% reduction in the management cost of adult and pediatric patients, respectively. It reduced the bleeding events and administration costs, as this drug is less frequently administered by subcutaneous route. Emicizumab prophylaxis also decreased the cost of other healthcare resources such as visits, tests, and hospitalizations, as well as indirect costs.

Conclusion

In comparison to prophylaxis with bypassing agents, emicizumab reduced direct and indirect costs, resulting in cost savings for the National Health System and society.

Patients with haemophilia A with inhibitors in China: a national real-world analysis and follow-up

The development of alloantibodies (inhibitors) against coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) is the most serious complication of FVIII replacement therapy in patients with haemophilia A (HA). We carried out a nationwide study focussing on patients with HA with inhibitors in China to evaluate the condition and management of this population. The study retrospectively analysed patient characteristics, clinical history, manifestation, treatment strategy as well as individual haemophilia care of 493 patients with inhibitors (466 with severe HA and 27 with non-severe HA) registered all over China. The median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis of FVIII inhibitors was 13 (5-28) years in patients with severe HA and 24 (10·5-39·5) years in patients with non-severe HA. Most patients (85%) had high-titre inhibitors. Prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant activated coagulation factor VII were used respectively in 76·2% and 29·2% of patients for acute bleeding. Only 22·3% of patients underwent immune tolerance induction (ITI) treatment, of whom 64·9% achieved negative inhibitor titre. In patients who did not undergo ITI, the inhibitors turned negative in 17·7%, and patients with low peak inhibitor titre were more likely to acquire negative titre spontaneously (odds ratio 11·524, 95% confidence interval 5·222-25·432; P = 0·000). We recorded that 3·2% of the patients died from haemophilia-related life-threatening bleeding.

Determining the value contribution of emicizumab (Hemlibra®) for the prophylaxis of haemophilia A with inhibitors in Spain by multi-criteria decision analysis

Patients with moderate to severe haemophilia A are at a higher risk of developing FVIII inhibitors that require the use of more costly and less effective treatments. The objective of this study was to determine the value of emicizumab for the prophylaxis of haemophilia A with inhibitors compared to the current therapeutic alternatives, activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa through reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. The EVIDEM framework adapted to orphan drugs and weighted by a sample of 98 national and regional Spanish evaluators was used. Two structured evidence matrices were developed: emicizumab against activated prothrombin complex concentrate and emicizumab against recombinant factor VIIa. A multidisciplinary team of haemophilia experts rated each of the criteria. Mean and standard deviation were calculated by each criterion and discussed among all participants. Haemophilia A with inhibitors was perceived as a severe disease with high unmet needs. Emicizumab was rated with higher efficacy, therapeutic benefit and quality of life than comparators. When administered alone for the prevention of bleeding events, emicizumab had slightly better safety and tolerability profile than activated prothrombin complex concentrate and similar with recombinant factor VIIa. The inclusion of emicizumab in clinical practice guidelines was valued positively by the members of the panel. Overall, value of emicizumab was higher than activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa, mostly because of efficacy and therapeutic benefit in reducing treated haemorrhages. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis has proven to be a feasible method to determine the value contribution of comparative therapies in haemophilia.

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.

Combination of hemostatic therapies for treatment of patients with hemophilia A and inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Therapy application and monitoring of patients with hemophilia A (HA) and inhibitors are challenging. In the current study, combined FVIII - bypass therapy was implemented for a cohort of severe HA patients with inhibitors.

METHODS

Plasma of 15 HA patients with inhibitors was spiked ex vivo with FVIII, rFVIIa, FEIBA and their combinations and thrombin generation (TG) was studied. Some patients who experienced hemarthroses or required minor surgeries were treated by a combined concomitant administration of FVIII+FEIBA as IV bolus doses.

RESULTS

TG spiking studies showed individual responses not correlated to inhibitor titer. Combinations of agents augmented TG as compared to any single agent, while combined FVIII+FEIBA yielded the highest TG, supporting it as a potential treatment. Following emergent successful surgery of child treated by concomitant FVIII+FEIBA, a total of 396 episodes in 7/15 patients were treated with concomitant FVIII+FEIBA. Five patients were treated for bleeding episodes only, whereas 2 were children undergoing immune tolerance induction (ITI) with FEIBA prophylaxis. Four minor surgeries were performed on FVIII+FEIBA repeated infusions. Neither thrombosis nor any other adverse events were documented.

CONCLUSION

A combination of FVIII+FEIBA may be effective and safe as an alternative treatment option for some high-responding inhibitor patients.

Estimating the potential cost of a high dose immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy relative to the cost of a combined therapy of a low dose ITI therapy with bypassing agent prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

The International Immune Tolerance Study (I-ITI) demonstrated comparable success rates between low (FVIII 50 IU/kg/TIW) and high dose (FVIII 200 IU/kg/day) regimens. While costlier, the high dose ITI regimen achieved shorter time-to-treatment success with fewer bleeding episodes compared to the low dose ITI regimen. Adding bypassing agent prophylaxis (BAP) to a low dose ITI regimen may reduce bleeding while still being less costly than high dose ITI.

AIM AND METHODS

An economic model was developed to compare high dose ITI to low dose ITI with BAP. All model inputs were derived from clinical trials. The I-ITI study indicated a median time to negative inhibitor titre of 4.6 and 9.2 months and average number of bleeds/patient of 4.2 and 9.9 for the high and low dose regimens respectively. Based on the BAP trials, aPCC (85 U/kg/TIW) and rFVIIa (90 μg/kg/day) achieved a 62% and 45% reduction in bleeding frequency respectively. Cost analysis was from a US third party payer perspective and limited to drug costs. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Costs of low dose ITI with aPCC prophylaxis until negative inhibitor titre is achieved was 24.0% less compared to high dose ITI. Low dose ITI with rFVIIa prophylaxis cost 46.5% more compared to high dose ITI. Model results were robust in the majority of the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

A low dose ITI regimen with aPCC prophylaxis may be cost saving compared to a high dose ITI regimen with the potential to reduce morbidity by lowering the risk for breakthrough bleeds.

Treatment and Prevention of Bleeds in Haemophilia Patients with Inhibitors to Factor VIII/IX

The development of alloantibodies neutralising therapeutically administered factor (F) VIII/IX (inhibitors) is currently the most severe complication of the treatment of haemophilia. When persistent and at a high titre, inhibitors preclude the standard replacement treatment with FVIII/FIX concentrates, making patients’ management challenging. Indeed, the efficacy of bypassing agents, i.e., activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC) and recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa), needed to overcome the haemostatic interference of the inhibitor, is not comparable to that of factor concentrates. In addition, the therapeutical response is unpredictable, with a relevant inter-individual and even intra-individual variability, and no laboratory assay is validated to monitor the efficacy and safety of the treatment. As a result, inhibitor patients have a worse joint status and quality of life compared to inhibitor-free subjects and the eradication of the inhibitor by immune tolerance induction is the preeminent therapeutic goal, particularly in children. However, over the last decades, treatment with bypassing agents has been optimised, allowing home treatment and the individualisation of regimens aimed at improving clinical outcomes. In this respect, a growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of prophylaxis with both bypassing agents in reducing bleeding rates and improving the quality of life, although the impact on long-term outcomes (in particular on preventing/reducing joint deterioration) is still unknown. This review offers an update on the current knowledge and practice of the use of bypassing agents in haemophiliacs with inhibitors, as well as on debated issues and unmet needs in this challenging setting.

Aspects of prophylactic treatment of hemophilia

Retrospective and prospective studies unambiguously show that prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A or B should be started as primary prophylaxis at 1–2 years’ of age and ideally before the first joint bleed. The dose and dose frequency should be individually tailored depending on the goal of treatment, venous access and the bleeding phenotype. The circumstances during the first exposures of factor VIII concentrates in hemophilia A may have an impact on the risk of developing inhibitors. Enhanced half-life products, in particular in hemophilia B, will facilitate treatment in patients with difficult venous access but also in achieving a higher trough level. Evidence accumulate that prophylactic treatment is beneficial also in adults and in patients with inhibitors.