Key issues in inhibitor management in patients with haemophilia

Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage in Persons with Hemophilia A in the United States: Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study Using the ATHNdataset

Introduction

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), a serious complication in persons with hemophilia A (PWHA), causes high rates of mortality and morbidity. Identified ICH risk factors from patient data spanning 1998-2008 require reassessment in light of changes in the current treatment landscape.

Aim and methods

PWHA identified in the ATHNdataset were evaluated retrospectively to assess incidence of ICH and determine the association between ICH risk and key characteristics using time-to-event analyses (Cox proportional-hazards models, survival curves, and sensitivity analyses).

Results

Over a median follow-up time of 10.7 patient-years, 135 of 7837 PWHA over 2 years of age in the ATHNdataset (1.7%) experienced an ICH. Stratification by prophylaxis status and inhibitor status resulted in an incidence rate (IR) ratio (IRR) (IR+/IR-) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.94; P=0.020) and 1.76 (95% CI, 0.97-3.20; P=0.059), respectively. Characteristics associated with greater risk of developing ICH include being aged 2-12 years; being covered by Medicaid; having had HIV, hepatitis C, or hypertension; and never having received factor VIII or prophylactic treatment. In multivariable analysis with interaction, the estimated hazard ratio for PWHA never receiving prophylaxis was 7.67 (95% CI, 2.24-26.30), which shrunk to 2.03 (95% CI, 1.30-9.12) in bootstrapping analysis and 3.09 in the highest-penalty ridge-regression analysis but was still significant. Inhibitor status was found not to be statistically associated with ICH in all analyses.

Conclusion

These results align with previous studies demonstrating that prophylaxis confers a protective effect against ICH. Previously, inhibitor positivity had been shown to increase risk for ICH; however, this study did not corroborate those findings.

The Impact of Recombinant Versus Plasma-Derived Factor VIII Concentrates on Inhibitor Development in Previously Untreated Patients With Hemophilia A: A 2021 Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hemophilia A, the most common hereditary disorder, is caused by clotting factor deficiency. Challenges encountered in the current treatment of hemophilia A [factor VIII (FVIII) replacement therapy] due to inhibitor development have caused ineffective treatment as well as morbidity and mortality among patients. However, there are no studies comparing the two types of FVIII treatments in terms of inhibitor development rate. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review to devise a better treatment option with a lower risk of inhibitor development. The systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and by searching several databases. Data extraction on study characteristics and outcomes was conducted. Reviewers also conducted a risk of bias assessment on all studies. All eligible studies for quantitative analysis were then processed using RevMan 5.4.1 and the data was extrapolated into cumulative outcomes and expressed in forest and funnel plots. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, involving a total of 2,531 hemophilia A patients who were followed up from birth until death. A higher incidence of inhibitor development was found to be associated with recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) [odds ratio (OR)=1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95-2.59; hazard ratio (HR)=1.89, 95% CI: 1.15-3.12]. The same trend was also found for high-responding inhibitors (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 0.70-2.70; HR=1.42, 95% CI: 0.84-2.39). rFVIII is associated with a higher risk of overall and high-responding inhibitor development compared to plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII).

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.

Assessing the Performance of Extended Half-Life Coagulation Factor VIII, FC Fusion Protein by Using Chromogenic and One-Stage Assays in Saudi Hemophilia A Patients

Background

The one-stage assay is the most common method to measure factor VIII activity (FVIII : C) in hemophilia A patients. The chromogenic assay is another two-stage test involving purified coagulation factors followed by factor Xa-specific chromogenic substrate.

Aim

This study aimed to assess the discrepancy and correlation between the chromogenic and one-stage assays in measuring FVIII : C levels in hemophilia patients receiving Extended Half-Life Elocta® as a recombinant extended half-life coagulation factor.

Methods

We performed a study comparing the measurements of FVIII : C levels by the chromogenic versus the one-stage assays at different drug levels. Data of FVIII : C levels, dosage, and the time interval from administration to measurement were retrieved from the hospital records. The correlation, mean differences, and discrepancy between the two assays were calculated. The linear regression analysis was used to predict the time interval till reaching 1% FVIII : C.

Results

Fourteen patients with 56 samples were included in the study. Of them, 13 patients were receiving Elocta® as a prophylactic, while one was receiving Elocta® on demand. One-third of these samples showed a discrepancy between the chromogenic and one-stage assays. The two assays were well correlated. Mean differences were significant at the individual and the time interval level. The time since the last Elocta® injection could significantly predict FVIII : C levels (β = 0.366, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings suggested a significant difference between both methods; the FVIII : C levels measured by the one-stage assay were less than those estimated by the chromogenic assay. However, the measurements of FVIII levels by the two assays were well correlated but discrepant in one-third of the samples. The levels of FVIII : C reach 1% after 5.4 days since the last Elocta® administration.

Infused factor VIII-expressing platelets or megakaryocytes as a novel therapeutic strategy for hemophilia A

B-domainless factor VIII (FVIII) ectopically expressed in megakaryocytes (MKs) is stored in α granules of platelets (pFVIII) and is capable of restoring hemostasis in FVIII^null mice, even in the presence of circulating inhibitors. However, our prior studies have shown that this ectopically expressed pFVIII can injure developing MKs. Moreover, the known risks of prolonged thrombocytopenia after bone marrow transplantation are significant challenges to the use of this strategy to treat individuals with severe hemophilia A and particularly those with intractable clinically relevant inhibitors. Because of these limitations, we now propose the alternative therapeutic pFVIII strategy of infusing pFVIII-expressing MKs or platelets derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). pFVIII-expressing iPSC-derived MKs, termed iMKs, release platelets that can contribute to improved hemostasis in problematic inhibitor patients with hemophilia A. As proof of principle, we demonstrate that hemostasis can be achieved in vitro and in vivo with pFVIII-expressing platelets and show prolonged efficacy. Notably, pFVIII-expressing platelets are also effective in the presence of inhibitors, and their effect was enhanced with recombinant FVIIa. Human pFVIII-expressing iMKs improved hemostasis in vitro, and derived platelets from infused human pFVIII-expressing iMKs improved hemostasis in FVIII^null mice. These studies indicate the potential therapeutic use of recurrent pFVIII-expressing MK or platelet infusions with prolonged hemostatic coverage that may be additive with bypassing agents in hemophilia A patients with neutralizing inhibitors.

Molecular Mechanisms of Inhibitor Development in Hemophilia

The development of neutralizing antibodies in hemophilia is a serious complication of factor replacement therapy. These antibodies, also known as "inhibitors", significantly increase morbidity within the hemophilia population and lower the quality of life for these patients. People with severe hemophilia A have an overall 25-40% lifetime risk of inhibitor development, compared to that of 5-15% lifetime risk in those with moderate/mild hemophilia A. The risk is lower in hemophilia B population (about 1-5%) and occurrence of inhibitors is almost only seen in patients with severe hemophilia B. The understanding of the pathophysiological mechanism leading to the development of inhibitors in patients with hemophilia has improved considerably over the last 2 decades. Identification of early biomarkers which predict inhibitor development in previously untreated patients with hemophilia will assist in risk identification and possible early intervention strategies. In this review, we aim to summarize the molecular mechanisms of inhibitor development in hemophilia and to identify potential areas in need of further investigation.

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.

The role of emicizumab, a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody, for the prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia A

Hemophilia A, characterized by impaired or absent expression of factor VIII, has long been managed via direct factor replacement. Functionally, factor VIII acts as a cofactor for factor IXa and allows activation of factor X, which, in combination with factor V, generates thrombin. Bispecific antibodies such as emicizumab are recombinant, monoclonal antibodies capable of recognizing and binding to two distinct antigenic targets simultaneously; emicizumab binds factors IXa and X, resulting in spatial approximation and activation of factor X, thereby mimicking the actions of factor VIII. Critically, the presence of antifactor VIII antibodies, for example, inhibitors, impacts neither the mechanism nor the efficacy by which emicizumab functions. The results and interim analyses of the emicizumab clinical trials, HAVEN 1, 2, 3, and 4, are additionally reviewed and discussed.

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.

New developments in the management of moderate-to-severe hemophilia B

Hemophilia B is an X-linked genetic deficiency of coagulation factor IX (FIX) activity associated with recurrent deep tissue and joint bleeding that may lead to long-term disability. FIX replacement therapy using plasma-derived protein or recombinant protein has significantly reduced bleeding and disability from hemophilia B, particularly when used in a prophylactic fashion. Although modern factor replacement has excellent efficacy and safety, barriers to the broader use of prophylaxis remain, including the need for intravenous (IV) access, frequent dosing, variability in individual pharmacokinetics, and cost. To overcome the requirement for frequent factor dosing, novel forms of recombinant FIX have been developed that possess extended terminal half-lives. Two of these products (FIXFc and rIX-FP) represent fusion proteins with the immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) Fc domain and albumin, respectively, resulting in proteins that are recycled in vivo by the neonatal Fc receptor. The third product has undergone site-specific PEGylation on the activation peptide of FIX, similarly resulting in a long-lived FIX form. Clinical trials in previously treated hemophilia B patients have demonstrated excellent efficacy and confirmed less-frequent dosing requirements for the extended half-life forms. However, gaps in knowledge remain with regard to the risk of inhibitor formation and allergic reactions in previously untreated patient populations, safety in elderly patients with hemophilia, effects on in vivo FIX distribution, and cost-effectiveness. Additional strategies designed to rebalance hemostasis in hemophilia patients include monoclonal-antibody-mediated inhibition of tissue factor pathway inhibitor activity and siRNA-mediated reduction in antithrombin expression by the liver. Both of these approaches are long acting and potentially involve subcutaneous administration of the drug. In this review, we will discuss the biology of FIX, the evolution of FIX replacement therapy, the emerging FIX products possessing extended half-lives, and novel “rebalancing” approaches to hemophilia therapy.