Beyond the guidelines: how we approach challenging scenarios in the diagnosis and management of von Willebrand disease

A fully humanized von Willebrand disease type 1 mouse model as unique platform to investigate novel therapeutic options

Patients suffering from von Willebrand disease (VWD) have reduced quality-of-life despite current treatment options. Moreover, innovation in VWD therapeutic strategies has essentially stalled, and available treatments have remained unchanged for decades. Therefore, there is an unmet need to develop new therapeutic strategies for VWD patients, especially for the large portion of those with VWD-type 1. Due to species differences, the available VWD murine models are not suitable for preclinical studies, making it difficult to test new therapeutic approaches in vivo. With this in mind, we generated mice selectively expressing human von Willebrand factor (VWF) and human GPIbα. Because this fully humanized model was found to express low VWF (12%) and factor VIII (FVIII) (40%) levels with normal multimer profile and activity/antigen ratio, we repositioned it as a VWD-type 1 model (hVWD1 mice). In depth characterization of this model confirmed VWD-type 1 features with a decrease in platelet adhesion and thrombus formation in vitro. In vivo, a moderate bleeding phenotype was observed which was corrected upon the administration of recombinant-VWF or upon histamine-induced release of endothelial VWF. In search of new therapeutic options for VWD, we designed a bispecific single-domain antibody that bridges VWF to albumin (KB-V13A12). Remarkably, a single subcutaneous administration of KB-V13A12 coincided with a sustained 2-fold increase in VWF antigen levels for up to ten days and normalized hemostasis in a tail-clip model in hVWD1 mice. Here, we describe the development of our unique humanized mouse model for VWD-type 1 and a promising new therapeutic that corrected hemostasis in these mice.

Bleeding Disorder of Unknown Cause: A Diagnosis of Exclusion

Patients with an unexplained mild to moderate bleeding tendency are diagnosed with bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC), a classification reached after ruling out other mild to moderate bleeding disorders (MBD) including von Willebrand disease (VWD), platelet function defects (PFDs), coagulation factor deficiencies (CFDs), and non-hemostatic causes for bleeding. This review outlines our diagnostic approach to BDUC, a diagnosis of exclusion, drawing on current guidelines and insights from the Vienna Bleeding Biobank (VIBB). According to guidelines, we diagnose VWD based on VWF antigen and/or activity levels ≤50 IU/dL, with repeated VWF testing if VWF levels are <80 IU/dL. This has been introduced in our clinical routine after our findings of diagnostically relevant fluctuations of VWF levels in a high proportion of MBD patients. PFDs are identified through repeated abnormalities in light transmission aggregometry (LTA), flow cytometric mepacrine fluorescence, and glycoprotein expression analysis. Nevertheless, we experience diagnostic challenges with regard to reproducibility and unspecific alterations of LTA. For factor (F) VIII and FIX deficiency, a cutoff of 50% is utilized to ensure detection of mild hemophilia A or B. We apply established cutoffs for other rare CFD being aware that these do not clearly reflect the causal role of the bleeding tendency. Investigations into very rare bleeding disorders due to hyperfibrinolysis or increase in natural anticoagulants are limited to cases with a notable family history or distinct bleeding phenotypes considering cost-effectiveness. While the pathogenesis of BDUC remains unknown, further explorations of this intriguing area may reveal new mechanisms and therapeutic targets.

Diagnosis and treatment of von Willebrand disease in 2024 and beyond

MANUSCRIPT BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnosis and clinical care of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD) has continued to evolve since the characterization of the von Willebrand factor (VWF) gene in 1985. This condition is almost certainly the most common inherited bleeding disorder, and the major symptomatic burden of the disease is experienced by females during their reproductive years. Diagnosis relies on the identification of a personal and family history of excessive mucocutaneous bleeding, and laboratory features consistent with quantitative and/or qualitative abnormalities of VWF. This review focuses on three aspects of VWD management, with current updates and a look into the future.

MANUSCRIPT THEMES

First, we will address the role of genetics in the diagnosis and possible therapies for VWD. With current technologies, VWD genetic diagnosis is usually confined to the confirmation of type 2 subtypes of the disease and type 3 VWD analysis for family planning. While type 3 VWD is a potential candidate for the application of gene therapy, no treatments are currently close to entering the clinic. Second, the peri-procedural management of patients with VWD remains an important element of care. The choice of product, its dose and schedule all require careful consideration depending upon the type and disruptive nature of the planned procedure. Lastly, in addition to gene therapy, several other novel therapeutic interventions are also being developed for bleeding and prophylaxis in VWD. These include a VWF aptamer interfering with VWF clearance and bioengineered forms of VWF.

Investigating patients for bleeding disorders when most of the "usual" ones have been ruled out

A State of the Art lecture titled "Investigating Patients for Bleeding Disorders When Most of the Usual Ones Have Been Ruled Out" was presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress in 2023. Mild to moderate bleeding disorders (MBDs) in patients in whom no diagnosis of an established disorder, such as platelet function defect, von Willebrand disease, or a coagulation factor deficiency, can be identified are classified as bleeding disorders of unknown cause (BDUCs). Prospective data from the Vienna Bleeding Biobank and other studies have revealed a high proportion of BDUCs of up to 70% among patients with MBD who have a similar bleeding phenotype as other MBDs. As BDUC is a diagnosis of exclusion, the accuracy of the diagnostic workup is essential. For example, repeated testing for von Willebrand disease should be considered if von Willebrand factor values are <80 IU/dL. Current evidence does not support the clinical use of global assays such as thromboelastography, platelet function analyzer, or thrombin generation potential. Rare and novel bleeding disorders due to genetic variants in fibrinolytic factors or natural anticoagulants are rare and should only be analyzed in patients with specific phenotypes and a clear family history. In BDUC, blood group O was identified as a risk factor for increased bleeding severity and bleeding risk after hemostatic challenges. Future studies should improve the phenotypical characterization and ideally identify novel risk factors in BDUC, as a multifactorial pathogenesis is suspected. Finally, we summarize relevant new data on this topic presented during the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress.

Laboratory diagnosis of von Willebrand disease in the age of the new guidelines: considerations based on geography and resources

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is considered the most common bleeding disorder and arises from deficiency and/or defect in the adhesive plasma protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). Diagnosis of VWD requires clinical assessment and is facilitated by laboratory testing. Several guidelines for VWD diagnosis exist, with the latest American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia 2021 guidelines presenting 11 recommendations, some of which have drawn controversy. In the current narrative review, we provide additional context around difficulties in laboratory diagnosis/exclusion/typing of VWD, with a focus on developing countries/resource-poor settings. In particular, there are many variations in assay methodology, and some methods express high assay variability and poor low-level VWF sensitivity that compromises their utility. Although we favor an initial 4-test assay panel, comprising factor (F) VIII coagulant activity, VWF antigen, VWF glycoprotein Ib binding (VWF:GPIbR or VWF:GPIbM favored over VWF Ristocetin cofactor) and VWF collagen binding, we also provide strategies for laboratories only able to incorporate an initial 3-test assay panel, as favored by the latest guidelines, to improve diagnostic accuracy.