Improved prediction of inhibitor development in previously untreated patients with severe haemophilia A

Performance of a clinical risk prediction model for inhibitor formation in severe haemophilia A

Background

There is a need to identify patients with haemophilia who have a very low or high risk of developing inhibitors. These patients could be candidates for personalized treatment strategies.

Aims

The aim of this study was to externally validate a previously published prediction model for inhibitor development and to develop a new prediction model that incorporates novel predictors.

Methods

The population consisted of 251 previously untreated or minimally treated patients with severe haemophilia A enrolled in the SIPPET study. The outcome was inhibitor formation. Model discrimination was measured using the C‐statistic, and model calibration was assessed with a calibration plot. The new model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling.

Results

Firstly, the previously published prediction model was validated. It consisted of three variables: family history of inhibitor development, F8 gene mutation and intensity of first treatment with factor VIII (FVIII). The C‐statistic was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.46–0.60), and calibration was limited. Furthermore, a new prediction model was developed that consisted of four predictors: F8 gene mutation, intensity of first treatment with FVIII, the presence of factor VIII non‐neutralizing antibodies before treatment initiation and lastly FVIII product type (recombinant vs. plasma‐derived). The C‐statistic was 0.66 (95 CI: 0.57–0.75), and calibration was moderate. Using a model cut‐off point of 10%, positive‐ and negative predictive values were 0.22 and 0.95, respectively.

Conclusion

Performance of all prediction models was limited. However, the new model with all predictors may be useful for identifying a small number of patients with a low risk of inhibitor formation.

Inhibitor development in previously untreated patients with severe haemophilia: A comparison of included patients and outcomes between a clinical study and a registry-based study

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a disease registry could serve as a suitable alternative to clinical studies to investigate safety of orphan drugs in children.

Methods

We used individual patient data from previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia A from the factor VIII (rAHF‐PFM)‐clinical study and the PedNet registry. The primary outcome was the patient characteristics at entry and the difference in inhibitor development between the clinical study and the registry‐based study at 50 exposure days.

Results

Clinical study patients more often had a positive family history of inhibitors (31% vs 10%) and a high‐risk F8 genotype (82% vs 63%). In the clinical study 41/55 (75%) and in the registry‐based study 162/168 (96%) patients reached 50 exposure days. Inhibitors developed in 16 of the 41 patients in the clinical study (39%) vs 44 of the 162 patients in the registry‐based study (27%); seven patients (7%) vs 28 patients (17%) had high‐titre inhibitors. The risk of developing an inhibitor during the first 50 exposure days was similar (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.56‐1.94), when adjusted for family history of inhibitors, F8 gene mutation and intensive treatment at first exposure.

Conclusion

In the registry‐based study, patient numbers and completeness of follow‐up were higher. The risk of developing an inhibitor to a single product was comparable. Although the sample size of this study was too small to conclude on differences in high‐ or low‐titre inhibitors, this suggests that a registry could serve as a more suitable source for evaluation of high‐titre inhibitors in the setting of factor VIII deficiency.

Origins and organization of the NHLBI State of the Science Workshop: Generating a national blueprint for future research on factor VIII inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

The major complication of protein replacement therapy for haemophilia A is the development of anti-FVIII antibodies or inhibitors that occur in 25%-30% of persons with severe haemophilia A. Alternative therapeutics such as bypassing agents or immune tolerance induction protocols have additional challenges and are not always effective.

AIM

Assemble a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) State of the Science (SOS) Workshop to generate a national blueprint for research on inhibitors to solve the problem of FVIII immunogenicity.

METHODS

An Executive Steering Committee was formed in October 2017 to establish the scientific focus and Scientific Working Groups for the SOS Workshop in May 2018. Four working groups were assembled to address scientific priorities in basic, translational and clinical research on inhibitors.

RESULTS

Working Group 1 was charged with determining the scientific priorities for clinical trials to include the integration of non-intravenous, non-factor therapeutics including gene therapy into the standard of care for people with haemophilia A with inhibitors. Working Group 2 established the scientific priorities for 21st-century data science and biospecimen collection for observational inhibitor cohort studies. The scientific priorities for acquiring an actionable understanding of FVIII immunogenicity and the immunology of the host response and FVIII tolerance were developed by Working Group 3. Working Group 4 designed prospective pregnancy/birth cohorts to study FVIII immunogenicity, inhibitor development and eradication.

CONCLUSION

The NHLBI SOS Workshop generated a focused summary of scientific priorities and implementation strategies to overcome the challenges of eradicating and preventing inhibitors in haemophilia A.

Risk stratification integrating genetic data for factor VIII inhibitor development in patients with severe hemophilia A

Replacement therapy in severe hemophilia A leads to factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors in 30% of patients. Factor VIII gene (F8) mutation type, a family history of inhibitors, ethnicity and intensity of treatment are established risk factors, and were included in two published prediction tools based on regression models. Recently investigated immune regulatory genes could also play a part in immunogenicity. Our objective is to identify bio-clinical and genetic markers for FVIII inhibitor development, taking into account potential genetic high order interactions. The study population consisted of 593 and 79 patients with hemophilia A from centers in Bonn and Frankfurt respectively. Data was collected in the European ABIRISK tranSMART database. A subset of 125 severely affected patients from Bonn with reliable information on first treatment was selected as eligible for risk stratification using a hybrid tree-based regression model (GPLTR). In the eligible subset, 58 (46%) patients developed FVIII inhibitors. Among them, 49 (84%) were “high risk” F8 mutation type. 19 (33%) had a family history of inhibitors. The GPLTR model, taking into account F8 mutation risk, family history of inhibitors and product type, distinguishes two groups of patients: a high-risk group for immunogenicity, including patients with positive HLA-DRB1*15 and genotype G/A and A/A for IL-10 rs1800896, and a low-risk group of patients with negative HLA-DRB1*15 / HLA-DQB1*02 and T/T or G/T for CD86 rs2681401. We show associations between genetic factors and the occurrence of FVIII inhibitor development in severe hemophilia A patients taking into account for high-order interactions using a generalized partially linear tree-based approach.

Navigating Speed Bumps on the Innovation Highway in Hemophilia Therapeutics

The unprecedented emergence of novel therapeutics for both hemophilia A and B during the last half decade has been accompanied by the promise of even more extraordinary progress in ameliorative and curative strategies for both disorders. Paradoxically, the speed of innovation has created new dilemmas for persons with hemophilia and their physicians with respect to optimizing individual choices from the expanding menu of standard and novel therapies and approaches to symptom or risk reduction, and ultimately, to normalizing the hemophilia phenotype. Among the most disruptive new approaches, challenges remain in the form of the adverse reactions that have been observed with nonfactor therapies, as well as in the uncertain long-term safety profile of potentially curative gene therapy. Together, these challenges have generated uncertainty as to how to adopt novel therapies and treatment strategies across a diverse patient population, creating speed bumps on the hemophilia innovation highway. It is from this perspective that this article discusses the current state of gene therapy and bleeding prophylaxis for hemophilia A and B, as well as prevention and treatment of the factor VIII inhibitor phenotype in hemophilia A. It further posits that these speed bumps may provide important clues to the mechanistic understanding of both symptom manifestation and resilience within the hemophilia phenotype, as well as opportunities to reconsider and reconfigure the current paradigms for symptom prediction and individualized therapeutic decision making.

Prediction of factor VIII inhibitor development in the SIPPET cohort by mutational analysis and factor VIII antigen measurement

Essentials A residual factor VIII synthesis is likely to be protective towards inhibitor (INH) development. Mutation type-inhibitor risk association was explored in 231 patients with severe hemophilia A. A 2-fold increase in INH development for in silico null vs. non-null mutations was found. A 3.5-fold increase in INH risk for antigen negative vs. antigen positive mutations was found.

SUMMARY

Background The type of F8 mutation is the main predictor of inhibitor development in patients with severe hemophilia A. Mutations expected to allow residual synthesis of factor VIII are likely to play a protective role against alloantibody development by inducing immune tolerance. According to the expected full or partial impairment of FVIII synthesis, F8 variants are commonly classified as null and non-null. Objectives To explore the mutation type-inhibitor risk association in a cohort of 231 patients with severe hemophilia A enrolled in the Survey of Inhibitors in Plasma-Product Exposed Toddlers (SIPPET) randomized trial. Methods The genetic defects in these patients, consisting of inversions of intron 22 (n = 110) and intron 1 (n = 6), large deletions (n = 16), and nonsense (n = 38), frameshift (n = 28), missense (n = 19) and splicing (n = 14) variants, of which 34 have been previously unreported, were reclassified according to two additional criteria: the functional effects of missense and splicing alterations as predicted by multiple in silico analyses, and the levels of FVIII antigen in patient plasma. Results A two-fold increase in inhibitor development for in silico null mutations as compared with in silico non-null mutations (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-5.17) and a 3.5-fold increase in inhibitor development for antigen-negative mutations as compared with antigen-positive mutations (HR 3.61, 95% CI 0.89-14.74] were found. Conclusions Our findings confirm an association between the synthesis of minute amounts of FVIII and inhibitor protection, and underline the importance of investigating the residual FVIII antigen levels associated with causative variants in order to understand their clinical relevance.

Analyses of the FranceCoag cohort support differences in immunogenicity among one plasma-derived and two recombinant factor VIII brands in boys with severe hemophilia A

Around one third of boys with severe hemophilia A develop inhibitors (neutralizing antibodies) against their therapeutic factor VIII product. This adverse effect may result in more life-threatening bleeding, disability, impaired quality of life, and costly care. We compared the incidence of inhibitors in boys treated with the three factor VIII products most used in France: one plasma-derived (Factane) and two recombinant products (Advate and Kogenate Bayer). A previously untreated cohort of patients was created in 1994 to investigate risk factors for inhibitor development. We selected boys with severe hemophilia A (factor VIII <1 IU/dL) first treated with one of the three factor VIII products studied. Details of product infusions, inhibitor assays and main fixed and time-varying inhibitor risk factors were recorded for the first 75 exposure days. Three outcomes (all inhibitors, high-titer inhibitors and subsequently treated inhibitors) were analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox models. We studied 395 boys first treated between 2001 and 2016 (131, 137, and 127 with Factane, Advate, and Kogenate Bayer, respectively). Clinically significant inhibitors were diagnosed in 121 patients (70 high-titer). The incidence of high-titer inhibitors was significantly associated with the factor VIII product received (P=0.005): the cumulative incidence at 75 exposure days was 12.7% (95% CI: 7.7-20.6) with Factane, 20.4% (95% CI: 14.0-29.1) with Advate, and 31.6% (95% CI: 23.5-41.7) with Kogenate Bayer. The low inhibitor incidence observed with Factane is concordant with recent findings from the SIPPET randomized trial. These consistent results from observational and experimental studies should lead to improved care for previously untreated patients and cost savings for healthcare systems worldwide.

Estudio molecular de la inversión de los intrones 1 y 22 del factor VIII de la coagulación en niños con hemofilia A severa utilizando técnica de PCR de larga distancia

Introducción. La hemofilia A es una enfermedad recesiva ligada al cromosoma X, con una incidencia de 1 en 5 000 a 10 000 varones y es el trastorno hemostático congénito más frecuente en varones. En pacientes con fenotipo severo, las inversiones de los intrones 22 y 1 son las mutaciones más comunes con una prevalencia del 45% a 50% y del 1% al 5% de los pacientes, respectivamente.Objetivo. Determinar la frecuencia de la inversión de los intrones 1 y 22 del gen del factor VIII de la coagulación en menores de 18 años con hemofilia A severa en Bogotá D.C.Materiales y métodos. Estudio descriptivo y transversal. La identificación de la inversión de los intrones 1 y 22 del gen del factor VIII se realizó mediante técnicas de reacción en cadena de polimerasa de larga distancia.Resultados. Se estudiaron 30 pacientes y se encontró inversión del intrón 22 en 12 pacientes (40%) e inversión 1 en 3 pacientes, cifras similares a las observadas en otros estudios.Conclusiones. Se encontraron las inversiones de los intrones 1 y 22 en la mitad de los pacientes evaluados. Los resultados son reproducibles, por lo que constituyen una herramienta útil para la identificación de las dos mutaciones más frecuentes en hemofilia A severa.

New findings on inhibitor development: from registries to clinical studies

The high incidence of inhibitors against factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates in patients with haemophilia A has encouraged debate as to whether product-type plays a role. There is debate in the literature as to whether rFVIII concentrates are associated with a higher incidence of inhibitors compared to pdFVIII products. The management of haemophilia in patients with inhibitors includes on-demand/prophylaxis treatment with bypassing agents, and/or immune tolerance induction (ITI). However, these options create an economic and emotional burden on patients, their families and healthcare practitioners. Although ITI eliminates inhibitors successfully in 60-80% of cases, it is costly. Despite high costs, preliminary data from a decision analytical model have indicated that ITI is economically advantageous compared with on-demand/prophylactic treatment with bypassing agents. In patients with persistent inhibitors and those who are not candidates for ITI or have failed ITI, bleeding-related mortality and morbidity increase and quality of life decreases, compared with non-inhibitor patients. This article provides an update on the risk of inhibitor development and discusses best management approaches for patients with high-risk factors for inhibitor development.

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.

A cohort study of the usefulness of primary prophylaxis in patients with severe haemophilia A

Primary prophylaxis is a method of haemostatic management to prevent bleeding and arthropathy in patients with severe haemophilia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of primary prophylaxis in patients with severe haemophilia A. This study included 15 patients with haemophilia A who received primary prophylaxis at our institution for a minimum of 5 years. We evaluated the annualized bleeding ratio of joints or other sites, current joint function, and X-ray images and MRI scans taken when patients were 6 years old. The range of patients' ages at the end of the study was 6.2-16.8 years, and at the start of primary prophylaxis it was 0.8-2.4 years. Factor VIII concentrates (25-40 units kg(-1) dose(-1)) were administered 3 times/week or every other day, according to the Swedish protocol. Mean joint and non-joint annualized bleeding ratios were 0.49 ± 0.5 and 1.54 ± 1.69, respectively. At the final evaluation, all patients displayed a normal range of motion for both elbows, knees, and ankles. The radiography and MRI findings at the age of 6 were unremarkable in all patients. Overall, primary prophylaxis for patients with severe haemophilia A was performed safely, reduced the number of bleeding events, and prevented progression to arthropathy.