Harmonization of clinical trial guidelines for assessing the risk of inhibitor development in hemophilia A treatment

BAY 81-8973 Efficacy and Safety in Previously Untreated and Minimally Treated Children with Severe Hemophilia A: The LEOPOLD Kids Trial

INTRODUCTION

 BAY 81-8973, a full-length recombinant factor VIII for hemophilia A treatment, has been extensively evaluated in previously treated patients in the LEOPOLD (Long-Term Efficacy Open-Label Program in Severe Hemophilia A Disease) clinical trials.

AIM

 To assess BAY 81-8973 efficacy and safety when used for bleed prophylaxis and treatment in previously untreated/minimally treated patients (PUPs/MTPs).

METHODS

 In this phase III, multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled study, PUPs/MTPs (<6 years old) with severe hemophilia A received BAY 81-8973 (15-50 IU/kg) at least once weekly as prophylaxis. Primary efficacy endpoint was the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) within 48 hours after prophylaxis infusion. Adverse events and immunogenicity were assessed. Patients who developed inhibitors were offered immune tolerance induction (ITI) treatment in an optional extension phase.

RESULTS

 Fifty-two patients were enrolled, with 43 patients (mean age: 13.6 months) treated. Median (interquartile range) ABR for all bleeds within 48 hours of prophylaxis infusion was 0.0 (0.0-1.8) among patients without inhibitors (n = 20) and 0.0 (0.0-2.2) among all patients. As expected, inhibitors were the most frequent treatment-related adverse event (high titer: 17 [39.5%] patients; low titer: 6 [13.9%] patients). Six of 12 patients who underwent ITI treatment in the extension phase (high titer [n = 5], low titer [n = 1]) achieved a negative inhibitor titer.

CONCLUSION

 BAY 81-8973 was effective for bleed prevention and treatment in PUPs/MTPs. The observed inhibitor rate was strongly influenced by a cluster of inhibitor cases, and consequently, slightly higher than in other PUP/MTP studies. Overall, the BAY 81-8973 benefit-risk profile remains unchanged and supported by ongoing safety surveillance. Immune tolerance can be achieved with BAY 81-8973.

CTLA4-Ig prevents development of neutralizing antibody formation after continuous treatment with human FVIII in HA rats

INTRODUCTION

Immunogenicity causing development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) are major challenges in the treatment of haemophilia, as well as other diseases where proteins are used for treatment. Furthermore, it is a complication for preclinical testing of such therapies in animal models.

AIM

To investigate if the immunosuppressive drug CTLA4 immunoglobulin (CTLA4-Ig) can induce tolerance in haemophilia A (HA) rats receiving recombinant human coagulation factor VIII (rhFVIII) treatment.

METHODS

Two different prophylactic rhFVIII compounds were given intravenously to HA rats for 4 weeks. Both rhFVIII compounds were co-administered with commercially available CTLA4-Ig or human IgG subclass 4 (hIgG4) as control, and blood samples were collected. To functionally test if pharmacological efficacy was retained, rats were subjected to a bleeding experiment under anaesthesia at end of study.

RESULTS

The mean inhibitory level after 4 weeks in rats receiving rhFVIII and hIgG4 was 85.7 BU for octocog alfa and 37.4 BU for rurioctocog alfa pegol. In contrast, co-administration with CTLA4-Ig during rhFVIII therapy prevented the formation of ADAs (both binding and inhibitory) in 14/14 rats receiving octocog alfa and in 7/7 rats receiving rurioctocog alfa pegol. Moreover, we were able to show that the pharmacological efficacy of rhFVIII was preserved.

CONCLUSION

In a rat model with spontaneous bleeding, co-administration of CTLA4-Ig with rhFVIII prevented antibody formation. No FVIII antibodies were detected, demonstrating that CTLA4-Ig co-administration can be applicable as a method to prevent immunogenicity, when evaluating human proteins in preclinical systems permitting continuous pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment.

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study

Background

The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency.

Methods

We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe.

Results

From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074).

Conclusion

We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.

[A phase Ⅲ multi-center clinical trial on safety and efficacy of a domestic plasma derived factor Ⅸ for the treatment of patients with hemophilia B]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a domestic human plasma derived coagulation Factor Ⅸ concentrate (pd-FⅨ) in patients with hemophilia B. Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label and single-arm study. The efficacy of pd-F Ⅸ was evaluated by objective performance criteria. The doses of pd-FⅨ were calculated according to the bleeding symptom and disease severity. The infusion efficiency of pd-FⅨ and improvement of bleeding symptoms were measured at 30 minutes and (24±4) h after the first infusion, respectively. Adverse events were recorded. Viral infection and FⅨ inhibitor were detected 90 d after the first infusion. Results: All 36 subjects with hemophilia B were enrolled in the study. The median age of these patients was 31 years old and the median injection doses were 4 (1-17) times. The hemostatic effect of 27/36 (75.00%) and 9/36 (25.00%) acute bleeding events were rated as "excellent" and "better" , respectively. The recovery rate was 111.92% (65.55%-194.28%) at 30 minutes after infusion of FⅨ. There was no adverse event related to FⅨ. No reactivation of HBV, HCV or HIV and FⅨ inhibitor was detected at 90-104 d after the first FⅨ infusion. Conclusion: This domestically made human plasma derived FⅨ concentrate is safe and effective in the treatment of acute bleeding in patients with hemophilia B. Clinical trial registration: China food and Durg Administration, 2016L08027.

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).

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.

[Study on risk factors and follow-up of 26 hemophilia A children with inhibitors]

目的

探讨中国血友病A(HA）患儿凝血因子Ⅷ（FⅧ）抑制物发生的危险因素、治疗及转归以及抑制物对HA患儿出血特征的影响。

方法

回顾性分析2010年1月至2014年12月445例HA患儿的临床资料。采用病例对照研究方法分析抑制物发生的危险因素。

结果

在纳入研究的445例HA患儿中，重型患者82例（18.4%），中间型患者269例（60.5%），轻型患者94例（21.1%）。抑制物阳性26例（5.8%，失访3例），低滴度抑制物9例，高滴度抑制物17例，其中重型、中间型患者各13例。高强度替代治疗是抑制物产生的危险因素[P=0.030，HR值为4.435(95% CI 1.150~17.094）]；抑制物产生后2例患者接受小剂量利妥昔单抗清除抗体治疗，其中1例联合免疫耐受治疗3个月。出血时65.2%（15/23）的患者选择凝血酶原复合物治疗，8.7%（2/23）选择制动、冰敷、抬高患肢等保守治疗措施，26.1%（6/23）选择间断输注小剂量FⅧ治疗。未接受抗体清除治疗的患者中，87.5%（7/8）低滴度抑制物转阴，抑制物中位持续时间为3(1~3）个月，84.6%（11/13）的高滴度抑制物随时间呈下降趋势，在未进行抗体清除治疗的情况下持续12~48个月仍未转阴，7.7%（1/13）的高滴度抑制物2年后转阴。抑制物产生前后患儿关节年出血率、非关节年出血率、自发年出血率、创伤性年出血率差异无统计学意义。

结论

高强度替代治疗是HA患儿抑制物产生的危险因素；抑制物并不能增加HA患儿出血频率。

Bayesian approach to the assessment of the population-specific risk of inhibitors in hemophilia A patients: a case study

Background

Developing inhibitors is a rare event during the treatment of hemophilia A. The multifacets and uncertainty surrounding the development of inhibitors further complicate the process of estimating inhibitor rate from the limited data. Bayesian statistical modeling provides a useful tool in generating, enhancing, and exploring the evidence through incorporating all the available information.

Methods

We built our Bayesian analysis using three study cases to estimate the inhibitor rates of patients with hemophilia A in three different scenarios: Case 1, a single cohort of previously treated patients (PTPs) or previously untreated patients; Case 2, a meta-analysis of PTP cohorts; and Case 3, a previously unexplored patient population – patients with baseline low-titer inhibitor or history of inhibitor development. The data used in this study were extracted from three published ADVATE (antihemophilic factor [recombinant] is a product of Baxter for treating hemophilia A) post-authorization surveillance studies. Noninformative and informative priors were applied to Bayesian standard (Case 1) or random-effects (Case 2 and Case 3) logistic models. Bayesian probabilities of satisfying three meaningful thresholds of the risk of developing a clinical significant inhibitor (10/100, 5/100 [high rates], and 1/86 [the Food and Drug Administration mandated cutoff rate in PTPs]) were calculated. The effect of discounting prior information or scaling up the study data was evaluated.

Results

Results based on noninformative priors were similar to the classical approach. Using priors from PTPs lowered the point estimate and narrowed the 95% credible intervals (Case 1: from 1.3 [0.5, 2.7] to 0.8 [0.5, 1.1]; Case 2: from 1.9 [0.6, 6.0] to 0.8 [0.5, 1.1]; Case 3: 2.3 [0.5, 6.8] to 0.7 [0.5, 1.1]). All probabilities of satisfying a threshold of 1/86 were above 0.65. Increasing the number of patients by two and ten times substantially narrowed the credible intervals for the single cohort study (1.4 [0.7, 2.3] and 1.4 [1.1, 1.8], respectively). Increasing the number of studies by two and ten times for the multiple study scenarios (Case 2: 1.9 [0.6, 4.0] and 1.9 [1.5, 2.6]; Case 3: 2.4 [0.9, 5.0] and 2.6 [1.9, 3.5], respectively) had a similar effect.

Conclusion

Bayesian approach as a robust, transparent, and reproducible analytic method can be efficiently used to estimate the inhibitor rate of hemophilia A in complex clinical settings.

Antibody response to recombinant human coagulation factor VIII in a new rat model of severe hemophilia A

BACKGROUND

Neutralizing antibodies toward FVIII replacement therapy (inhibitors) are the most serious treatment-related complication in hemophilia A (HA). A rat model of severe HA (F8(-/-) ) has recently been developed, but an immunological characterization is needed to determine the value of using the model for research into inhibitor development.

OBJECTIVES

Characterize the antibody response towards recombinant human coagulation factor VIII (rhFVIII) in the HA rat, following a human prophylactic dosing regimen.

METHODS

Two identical studies were performed, which included a total of 17 homozygous HA rats (F8(-/-) , 0% FVIII activity), 12 heterozygous rats (F8(+/-) ), and 12 wild-type (F8(+/+) ) rats. All rats received intravenous injections of rhFVIII at 50 IU kg(-1) twice weekly for 4 weeks. Predosing blood samples were analyzed for binding and neutralizing anti-rhFVIII antibodies at weeks 1-7.

RESULTS

In both studies, antibodies developed after 4-6 administrations of rhFVIII, and neutralizing antibodies reached levels similar to human patients (range 1-111 BU, median 6.0 BU) at the end of the study. There was no significant difference between the two studies or between genotypes in time to response or levels reached for binding and neutralizing antibodies. Interestingly, early spontaneous bleeds were associated with a faster antibody response.

CONCLUSIONS

Following intravenous administration of human FVIII, according to a clinical prophylaxis regimen, a robust and reproducible antibody response is seen in this HA rat model, suggesting that the model is useful for intervention studies with the aim of suppressing, delaying, or preventing the inhibitor response. Also, bleeds seem to have an adjuvant effect on the immune response.

Non-genetic risk factors and their influence on the management of patients in the clinic

The development of inhibitors is the most serious iatrogenic complication affecting patients with haemophilia. This complication is associated with impaired vital or functional prognosis, reduced quality of life and increased cost of treatment. The reasons why some patients develop antibodies to factor replacement and others do not remain unclear. It is however clear that inhibitor development results from a complex multifactorial interaction between genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Environmental influences implicated in increasing the risk of inhibitor formation can be viewed as modifiable risk factors. Therefore, identification of the non-genetic risk factors may offer the possibility of personalising haemophilia therapy by modifying treatment strategies in high-risk patients in the critical early phase of factor VIII exposure. In this article, we review the non-genetic factors reported as well as the potential impact of danger signals and the different scores for inhibitor development risk stratification.

Developing a two-sided intervention to facilitate shared decision-making in haemophilia: decision boxes for clinicians and patient decision aids for patients

BACKGROUND

People with haemophilia face many treatment decisions, which are largely informed by evidence from observational studies. Without evidence-based 'best' treatment options, patient preferences play a large role in decisions regarding therapy. The shared decision-making (SDM) process allows patients and health care providers to make decisions collaboratively based on available evidence, and patient preferences. Decision tools can help the SDM process. The objective of this project was to develop two-sided decision tools, decision boxes for physicians and patient decision aids for patients, to facilitate SDM for treatment decisions in haemophilia.

METHODS

Development of the decision tools comprised three phases: topic selection, prototype development and usability testing with targeted end-users. Topics were selected using a Delphi survey. Tool prototypes were based on a previously validated framework and were informed by systematic literature reviews. Patients, through focus groups, and physicians, through interviews, reviewed the prototypes iteratively for comprehensibility and usability.

RESULTS

The chosen topics were: (i) prophylactic treatment: when to start and dosing, (ii) choosing factor source and (iii) immunotolerance induction: when to start and dosing. Intended end users (both health care providers and haemophilia patients and caregivers) were engaged in the development process. Overall perception of the decision tools was positive, and the purpose of using the tools was well received.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing decision tools for haemophilia treatment decisions. It also provides anecdotal evidence of positive perceptions of such tools. Future directions include assessment of the tools' practical value and impact on clinical practice.

Incidence and risk factors for inhibitor development in previously untreated severe haemophilia A patients born between 2005 and 2010

The objective of this study was to evaluate the inhibitor development (ID) in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia A (FVIII ≤ 0.01 IU mL(-1) ). All Canadian Haemophilia Treatment Centres completed a questionnaire on patients born between September 2005 and August 2010 and followed for up to 7 years. Eligible patients had at least 20 exposure days (ED) or had developed an inhibitor. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for risk factors to develop an inhibitor were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. A total of 99 haemophilia A PUPs were studied. Thirty-four (34%) developed an inhibitor (24/34 of high titre). Inhibitors developed in 25/63 (40%) patients with a high-risk mutation. ID was most frequent in Aboriginals (86%). Dose intensity (IU kg(-1)  day(-1) X number of ED) at first exposure to factor VIII (FVIII) was associated with a crude OR increase of 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99-1.23) with each increase of 100 dose-intensity units. Haemarthrosis and intracranial bleeding as the indication for first exposure to FVIII concentrate were associated with a crude OR for ID of 7.63 (95% CI: 2.14-27.17) and 5.08 (95% CI: 1.11-23.31) respectively. ID according to FVIII concentrate used was: Advate (®) 18/50 (36%), Kogenate FS(®) or Helixate FS(®) 15/36 (42%), Wilate(®) 0/11 and Xyntha(®) 1/2. In multivariate analysis, Aboriginal ethnicity (OR = 11.69; 95% CI: 1.11-122.86) and haemarthrosis (OR = 4.49; 95% CI: 1.08-18.61) were statistically significant. The cumulative incidence of ID in severe haemophilia A PUPs was 34% and varied according to ethnicity, type of bleeding at first ED, type of FVIII product and dose intensity at first exposure.

The role of Rixubis™ in the treatment of hemophilia B

Hemophilia B is an inherited coagulopathy caused by the partial or complete deficiency of factor (F) IX. Factor replacement therapy, involving the intravenous infusion of plasma-derived or recombinant (r) FIX concentrate, is the cornerstone of treatment, used to control and prevent bleeding episodes. Although several plasma-derived FIX products are available, until recently, only a single rFIX concentrate was on the market. The aim of this paper is to review the pharmacokinetics, hemostatic efficacy, and safety of Rixubis™ (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, CA, USA), a newly licensed rFIX product.

Inhibitor development in previously treated hemophilia A patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

The development of neutralizing alloantibodies (inhibitors) is the most serious complication of factor VIII (FVIII) replacement therapy in patients with hemophilia A. Unlike previously untreated patients, no definite risk factors for inhibitor development are known for previously treated patients (PTPs). The investigation of the development of inhibitors in PTPs is hindered by several methodological limitations in the available literature. We conducted a systematic review to account for these limitations.

METHODS

We considered the studies reporting on PTPs that were included in the Wight and Paisley meta-analysis and a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies published after 2003. Studies that investigated the development of inhibitors in hemophilia A PTPs who were treated with any type of FVIII concentrate and that included at least 25 patients with follow-up were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-three independent cohorts of PTPs with 4323 subjects and 43 incident de novo inhibitors were found and analyzed. The pooled incidence rate of inhibitor development for the 25 studies providing data on follow-up was 3 (95% confidence interval 1-4) per 1000 person-years. A significant association was not found between putative risk factors and inhibitor development in PTPs at meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis, but the model was sensitive enough to the inclusion of the reports on the Belgian-Dutch experience with a highly immunogenic factor VIII.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed a low overall rate of de novo inhibitors in PTPs, without any significant effect of putative predictors, including the type of factor VIII concentrate.

Clotting factor concentrate switching and inhibitor development in hemophilia A

The development of alloantibodies or inhibitors is the most serious complication a patient with severe hemophilia can experience from treatment with clotting factor concentrates. Although common in previously untreated patients, inhibitor development is rare in multiply exposed, well-tolerized patients. There has been a nonevidence-based reluctance to change concentrate because of a perceived greater inhibitor risk after the switch, even though most patients are now likely to be using a concentrate on which they did not begin. Inhibitors in previously treated patients are observed in approximately 2 per 1000 patient/years, which makes it difficult to study and compare rates among different products. Because the baseline inhibitor risk in previously treated patients may vary over time, it is important to compare the risk in patients switching to a new product with that in a parallel control group of nonswitching patients or within a case-controlled study. The study designs imposed by regulators are suboptimal in detecting immunogenicity signals. The issue of immunogenicity of new products is likely to gain more relevance in the near future, with a call for effective postmarketing surveillance studies for all of the new engineered factor VIII concentrates with prolonged half-lives that are likely to enter clinical practice.