Inhibitors in nonsevere haemophilia A: outcome and eradication strategies

Nonsevere Hemophilia: The Need for a Renewed Focus and Improved Outcomes

People with nonsevere hemophilia (PWNSH) are phenotypically more diverse than those with severe hemophilia. Perceptions relating to a "nonsevere" phenotype have contributed to fewer research initiatives, fewer guidelines on optimal management, and a lack of standards for surveillance and clinical assessment for affected individuals. In many cases, episodes of abnormal bleeding could, if investigated, have led to earlier diagnosis. Furthermore, the major recent developments in therapy for hemophilia have largely focused on severe disease and, as a group, PWNSH have not been included in many key clinical trials. Benefiting people with severe disease, innovative replacement therapies have generally targeted factor levels that are above those present in a large proportion of PWNSH. Therapeutic advances can lead to improvement in phenotype for people with severe hemophilia over that currently experienced by many PWNSH. As a result, we are approaching a point where PWNSH may, in many countries, have a higher risk of bleeding and restriction in lifestyle than those with severe disease but with more limited therapeutic options. Given the multiple major advances in treatment for people with hemophilia, it is timely to review the aspects of nonsevere disease, to ensure equity in care and management for all individuals with this condition.

Mutational landscape, inhibitor development, and health-care burden in non-severe haemophilia A: A single-centre Australian experience

AIM

To characterise non-severe haemophilia A (HA) patients enrolled on the Australian Bleeding Disorders Registry (ABDR) treated through a state-wide Haemophilia Treatment Centre (HTC) with respect to their mutational profile, inhibitor risk and health-care burden.

METHOD

We conducted a single-centre observational study of all non-severe HA patients treated at the Alfred Health HTC registered on the ABDR as of the 26th July 2023. Data were extracted from the ABDR and electronic medical record (EMR) regarding demographics, severity, genetic testing, treatment, inhibitors, bleeding events and procedures. Inhibitor risk was calculated as a function of exposure days (EDs) of FVIII replacement.

RESULTS

There were 289 non-severe HA patients treated at the Alfred HTC registered on the ABDR as of July 2023, all of whom were adult patients aged > 18 years old. Genotyping had been performed in 228/289 (78.9%). Of the inhibitor analysis population, 14/193 (7.3%) had an inhibitor. The cumulative incidence of inhibitor development at 75 EDs was 31% (95% CI 13%-46%). The median cost of bypassing agents per inhibitor patient was $57,087.50/year.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate a relatively high inhibitor prevalence and incidence risk in non-severe HA compared to previously published work, although this may partly reflect a smaller population size. High rates of genotyping have allowed representative mutational characterisation. The burden of care imposed by non-severe HA in terms of bleeding events, procedures and bypassing agent cost is larger than expected, particularly within the inhibitor population.

Immune complications and their management in inherited and acquired bleeding disorders

Disorders of coagulation, resulting in serious risks for bleeding, may be caused by autoantibody formation or by mutations in genes encoding coagulation factors. In the latter case, antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may form against the clotting factor protein drugs used in replacement therapy, as is well documented in the treatment of the X-linked disease hemophilia. Such neutralizing antibodies against factors VIII or IX substantially complicate treatment. Autoantibody formation against factor VIII leads to acquired hemophilia. Although rare, antibody formation may occur in the treatment of other clotting factor deficiencies (eg, against von Willebrand factor [VWF]). The main strategies that have emerged to address these immune responses include (1) clinical immune tolerance induction (ITI) protocols; (2) immune suppression therapies (ISTs); and (3) the development of drugs that can improve hemostasis while bypassing the antibodies against coagulation factors altogether (some of these nonfactor therapies/NFTs are antibody-based, but they are distinct from traditional immunotherapy as they do not target the immune system). Choice of immune or alternative therapy and criteria for selection of a specific regimen for inherited and autoimmune bleeding disorders are explained. ITI serves as an important proof of principle that antigen-specific immune tolerance can be achieved in humans through repeated antigen administration, even in the absence of immune suppression. Finally, novel immunotherapy approaches that are still in the preclinical phase, such as cellular (for instance, regulatory T cell [Treg]) immunotherapies, gene therapy, and oral antigen administration, are discussed.

Immune tolerance induction in the era of emicizumab - still the first choice for patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors?

INTRODUCTION

The development of inhibitory antibodies is a severe complication of clotting factor replacement therapy in patients with severe haemophilia A (HA). Current World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines for haemophilia care indicate that eradication of inhibitors is best achieved through immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy.

AIM

The European Collaborative Haemophilia Network conducted a survey to determine whether ITI is still used in the routine management of patients with HA, and whether the availability of emicizumab prophylaxis has influenced treatment decisions.

METHODS

The survey was conducted in late 2020/early 2021 in 18 centres representing 17 countries in the Europe/Middle East region treating a total of 4955 patients, and included sections specific to patient and centre demographics, treatment protocols (both ITI and prophylactic), inhibitor development and initiation of ITI, treatment success, and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

While our results indicate that ITI can still be considered a mainstay of treatment for patients with HA with inhibitors, less than daily dosing of ITI in combination with emicizumab prophylaxis is becoming commonplace across the spectrum of disease severity, with initiation being guided by bleeding patterns. The most frequently cited reasons for not initiating emicizumab prophylaxis were availability or reimbursement issues.

CONCLUSION

ITI remains a mainstay for haemophilia treatment of patients with HA with inhibitors, but emicizumab has become a preferred first-line approach to protect against bleeds and represents an alternative to burdensome ITI in certain patient groups.

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.

Nonsevere hemophilia A: often overlooked, but not forgotten

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonsevere hemophilia A (NSHA) patients have received relatively little clinical and research attention as compared with their severe counterparts. There is increasing recognition that despite their milder bleeding phenotype, the management of NSHA can be a challenge, with most management decisions largely inferred from severe hemophilia A data. This review focuses on some of the more recent developments in the field of NSHA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiologic studies suggest that NSHA remain under-recognized and under-diagnosed globally. As the NSHA population ages, they are susceptible to age-related comorbidities. Large cohort studies of NSHA report that the most common primary cause of death is malignancy. NSHA patients have a lifetime risk of inhibitor development with increasing exposure to factor VIII concentrate. Even so, not all patients with inhibitors will require eradication treatment, irrespective of bleeding phenotype at time of inhibitor development.

SUMMARY

As there are currently no evidence-based strategies for inhibitor eradication in NSHA patients, preventive strategies are critical to mitigate inhibitor risk in NSHA. There is a need for active surveillance of NSHA patients by hemophilia treatment centers to address hemophilia-related issues and other age-related comorbidities, in collaboration with primary care physicians and other subspecialists.

The factor VIII treatment history of non-severe hemophilia A

BACKGROUND

In patients with non-severe hemophilia A, we lack detailed knowledge on the timing of treatment with factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates. This knowledge could provide information about the expected treatment timing in patients with severe hemophilia A treated with non-replacement therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the FVIII treatment history in patients with non-severe hemophilia A.

METHODS

Patients with non-severe hemophilia (baseline FVIII activity [FVIII:C] 2-40 IU/dL) were included from the INSIGHT study. The primary outcome was median age at first FVIII exposure (ED1). In a subgroup of patients for whom more detailed information was available, we analyzed the secondary outcomes: median age at first 20 EDs, annualized bleeding rate for all bleeds (ABR), joint bleeds (AJBR), and major spontaneous bleeds (ASmBR).

RESULTS

In the total cohort (n = 1013), median baseline FVIII activity was 8 IU/dL (interquartile range [IQR] 4-15) and the median age at ED1 was 3.7 years (IQR 1.4-7.7). Median age at ED1 rose from 2.5 years (IQR 1.2-5.7) in patients with FVIII:C 2-5 IU/dL to 9.7 years (IQR 4.8-16.0) in patients with FVIII:C 25-40 IU/dL. In the subgroup (n = 104), median age at ED1, ED5, ED10, and ED20 was 4.0 years (IQR 1.4-7.6), 5.6 years (IQR 2.9-9.3), 7.5 years (IQR 4.4-11.3), and 10.2 years (IQR 6.5-14.2), respectively. Median ABR, AJBR, and ASmBR were 1.1 (IQR 0.5-2.6), 0.3 (IQR 0.1-0.7), and 0 (IQR 0-0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that in non-severe hemophilia A, the age at first FVIII exposure increases with baseline FVIII:C and that major spontaneous bleeds rarely occur.

Inhibitors and mortality in persons with nonsevere hemophilia A in the United States

Although persons with nonsevere hemophilia A (NSHA) account for about one-half of the hemophilia A population, epidemiological data in this subset of individuals are scarce. We set out to describe the clinical characteristics of persons with NSHA with inhibitors, and to determine mortality rates, predictors of mortality, and primary causes of death in persons with NSHA in the United States over a 9-year period (2010-2018). We queried the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network dataset (ATHNdataset) for information on demographics, inhibitor status, and date and cause of death. A total of 6624 persons with NSHA (86.0% men; 14.0% women) were observed for an average of 8.5 years; total 56 119 person-years . The prevalence of inhibitors was 2.6% (n = 171), occurring at a median age of 13 years. At the end of follow-up, 136 persons died at a median age of 63 years; an age-adjusted mortality rate of 3.3 deaths per 1000 person-years. Three deaths occurred in inhibitor participants. Presence of inhibitors was not associated with increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-2.3). Factors independently associated with increased risk of death (HR, 95% CI) were the following: age (10-year increase) (2.1, 2.0-2.4); male (2.6, 1.0-6.4); hepatitis C (2.2, 1.5-3.1); and HIV (3.6, 2.2-6.0). The most common primary cause of death was malignancy (n = 27, 20.0%). In persons with NSHA, the development of inhibitors occurred at an early age and was not associated with increased mortality.

FVIII Immunogenicity-Bioinformatic Approaches to Evaluate Inhibitor Risk in Non-severe Hemophilia A

The life-long inhibitor risk in non-severe hemophilia A has been an important clinical and research focus in recent years. Non-severe hemophilia A is most commonly caused by point mutation, missense F8 genotypes, of which over 500 variants are described. The immunogenic potential of just a single amino acid change within a complex 2,332 amino acid protein is an important reminder of the challenges of protein replacement therapies in diverse, global populations. Although some F8 genotypes have been identified as "high risk" mutations in non-severe hemophilia A (e.g., R593C), this is likely, in part at least, a reporting bias and oversimplification of the underlying immunological mechanism. Bioinformatic approaches offer a strategy to dissect the contribution of F8 genotype in the context of the wider HLA diversity through which antigenic peptides will necessarily be presented. Extensive modeling of all permutations of FVIII-derived fifteen-mer peptides straddling all reported F8 genotype positions demonstrate the likely heterogeneity of peptide binding affinity to different HLA II grooves. For the majority of F8 genotypes it is evident that inhibitor risk prediction is dependent on the combination of F8 genotype and available HLA II. Only a minority of FVIII-derived peptides are predicted to bind to all candidate HLA molecules. In silico predictions still over call the risk of inhibitor occurrence, suggestive of mechanisms of "protection" against clinically meaningful inhibitor events. The structural homology between FVIII and FV provides an attractive mechanism by which some F8 genotypes may be afforded co-incidental tolerance through homology of FV and FVIII primary amino sequence. In silico strategies enable the extension of this hypothesis to analyse the extent to which co-incidental cross-matching exists between FVIII-derived primary peptide sequences and any other protein in the entire human proteome and thus potential central tolerance. This review of complimentary in vitro, in silico, and clinical epidemiology data documents incremental insights into immunological mechanism of inhibitor occurrence in non-severe hemophilia A over the last decade. However, complex questions remain about antigenic processing and presentation to truly understand and predict an individual person with hemophilia risk of inhibitor occurrence.

Product type and the risk of inhibitor development in nonsevere haemophilia A patients: a case-control study

Inhibitor development is a major complication of treatment with factor VIII concentrates in nonsevere haemophilia A. It has been suggested that plasma-derived factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates elicit fewer inhibitors than recombinant FVIII concentrates, but studies in severe haemophilia A patients have shown conflicting results. We designed a case-control study to investigate the clinical and genetic risk factors for inhibitor development in nonsevere haemophilia A patients. We investigated whether the type of FVIII concentrate was associated with inhibitor development in nonsevere haemophilia A patients. This nested case-control study includes 75 inhibitor patients and 223 controls, from a source population of the INSIGHT study, including all nonsevere haemophilia A patients (FVIII:C 2-40%) that were treated with FVIII concentrates in 33 European and one Australian centre. Cases and controls were matched for date of birth and cumulative number of exposure days (CED) to FVIII concentrate. A conditional logistic regression model was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios. No increased risk for inhibitor development was found for any type of FVIII concentrate; either when comparing recombinant FVIII concentrates to plasma-derived FVIII concentrates (adjusted odds ratio 0·96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·36-2·52) or for specific types of FVIII concentrates.

Perioperative laboratory monitoring in congenital haemophilia patients with inhibitors: a systematic literature review

: Although the use of clotting factor concentrates is the mainstay of haemophilia care, the development of inhibitors complicates disease management. Perioperative management of patients with inhibitors is therefore a challenge. A systematic literature review was performed to identify literature reporting on the perioperative monitoring and management of haemophilia. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from database inception to 26 March 2018. Recent congress proceedings were also searched. Titles and abstracts, then full texts, were screened for relevance by two reviewers. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Of the 2033 individual entries identified, 86 articles met the inclusion criteria. The identified studies were screened again to find articles reporting perioperative laboratory monitoring in patients with congenital haemophilia A or B, resulting in 24 articles undergoing data extraction. Routine perioperative assay monitoring practices were the most commonly reported (n = 20/24); thrombin generation assay was the least commonly reported (n = 2/24). Other monitoring practices described were factor VII and factor VIII coagulation activity (n = 8/24, n = 5/24, respectively), and thromboelastography or rotational thromboelastometry assessments (n = 3/24). The impact of monitoring on treatment decisions was, however, rarely reported. In conclusion, many methods of perioperative monitoring of haemophilia patients with inhibitors have been identified in this review, yet there is a lack of reporting in larger scale cohort studies. More detailed reporting on the impact of monitoring outcomes on treatment decisions is also needed to share best practice, particularly as new therapeutic agents emerge.

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.

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.

Factor VIII cross-matches to the human proteome reduce the predicted inhibitor risk in missense mutation hemophilia A

Single missense mutations in the F8 gene encoding the coagulation protein factor VIII give rise predominantly to non-severe hemophilia A. Despite only a single amino acid sequence difference between the replacement, therapeutic factor VIII and the patient's endogenous factor VIII, therapeutic factor VIII may still be perceived as foreign by the recipient's immune system and trigger an immune response (inhibitor). Inhibitor formation is a life-long risk for patients with non-severe hemophilia A treated with therapeutic factor VIII, but remains difficult to predict. The aim of this study was to understand whether fortuitous, primary sequence cross-matches between therapeutic factor VIII and proteins in the human proteome are the reason why certain F8 mutations are not associated with inhibitor formation. We predicted which therapeutic factor VIII differences are potentially perceived as foreign by helper T cells - a necessary precursor to inhibitor development - and then scanned potentially immunogenic peptides against more than 100,000 proteins in the proteome. As there are hundreds of disease-causing F8 missense mutations and the human leukocyte antigen gene complex governing peptide presentation to helper T cells is highly polymorphic, these calculations pose a huge combinatorial challenge that we addressed computationally. We found that cross-matches between therapeutic factor VIII and the human proteome are commonplace and have a profound impact on the predicted risk of inhibitor development. Our results emphasize the importance of knowing both the F8 missense mutation and the human leukocyte antigen alleles of a patient with missense mutation hemophilia A if his underlying risk of inhibitor development is to be estimated.

Optimization of pre-analytical heat treatment for inhibitor detection in haemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

Factor VIII (FVIII) antibody formation is the greatest clinical and laboratory challenge within the haemophilia centre. The Nijmegen-Bethesda assay (NBA) is the gold standard for inhibitor quantification, but affected by pre-analytical variables including a patient's FVIII activity (FVIII:C). Pre-analytical heat treatment (PHT) provides a methodology for inhibitor testing when measurable FVIII:C is present.

METHODS

We evaluated the effect of different PHT conditions (time/temperature) on FVIII:C as well as on potency of inhibitory activity in samples containing FVIII:C (endogenous pooled plasma and exogenous recombinant FVIII (rFL-FVIII) concentrate) or FVIII inhibitor.

RESULTS

PHT of endogenous FVIII at 37°C, 47°C and 52°C resulted in declining measurable FVIII:C at 120 minutes (69%, 57% and 13% of the original FVIII:C, respectively). Incubation at 56°C resulted in FVIII:C ≤ 1IU/dL after 60 minutes for endogenous FVIII and 120 minutes for rFL-FVIII. Incubation at 58°C resulted in FVIII:C < 1IU/dL at 15-30 minutes for endogenous FVIII and at 30-60 minutes for rFL-FVIII. No difference was seen for inhibitor detection following PHT (56°C or 58°C) by NBA or anti-FVIII IgG ELISA.

CONCLUSION

PHT at 58°C for 30 minutes demonstrated consistent reduction in FVIII:C < 1IU/dL without appearing to affect inhibitor detection. Laboratory awareness of differences in thermostability of different sources of FVIII is important when choosing PHT conditions.

European principles of inhibitor management in patients with haemophilia

Background

In spite of recent major advances in the understanding and treatment of inhibitor development in patients with haemophilia, multidisciplinary management of many of these patients remains suboptimal and highly heterogenous across Europe.

Methods

Following a series of multidisciplinary meetings and a review of the literature, the European haemophilia community of health professionals and patients jointly defined practical optimum standards for ensuring and harmonizing treatment and care for patients with an inhibitor.

Results

Ten complementary principles for the management of inhibitors in haemophilia have been developed, emphasizing the importance and benefits of a centralized, multidisciplinary, expert and holistic approach.

Conclusions

This document will serve as a benchmark to improve the multidisciplinary and practical management of patients with inhibitor. Implementation and adherence to each of these principles should have a major positive impact on the management and outcomes of patients developing an inhibitor.

The incidence and treatment of bleeding episodes in non-severe haemophilia A patients with inhibitors

The development of an inhibitory antibody in non-severe haemophilia A patients may aggravate the bleeding phenotype considerably. Effective treatment of bleeding episodes may be challenging, with ensuing severe complications. At present, evidence is scarce for optimal treatment of bleeding episodes in this patient group. The aim of this study was to describe the incidence and the treatment of bleeding episodes in inhibitor patients in a population-based unselected cohort of non-severe haemophilia A patients with clinically relevant inhibitors. Data were available for 100 of the 107 non-severe haemophilia A patients (factor VIII (FVIII) baseline, 2–40 lU/dl) from 29 centres in Europe and one centre in Australia who had developed a clinically relevant inhibitor between 1980 and 2011. The majority (89 %) of the patients were treated during the inhibitor period for bleeding episodes or a surgical intervention: 66 % needed treatment for bleeding episodes, at a median annual bleeding rate (ABR) of 1.1 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.1–2.5) and a median total of 2 (IQR 1–6) bleeding episodes. Compared to the median ABR before inhibitor development of 0.095 bleeds per year (IQR 0.02–0.42), the increase in ABR is more than a 10-fold. More than 90 % of the bleeding episodes were treated with only one type of product, most frequently (51 %) FVIII concentrates. This study provides the incidence of bleeding episodes and treatment choices in non-severe haemophilia A patients with inhibitors. The 10-fold increase to a median ABR of 1.1 episodes per year emphasizes the impact of inhibitor development for non-severe haemophilia A patients.

Diagnosis and care of patients with mild haemophilia: practical recommendations for clinical management

Mild haemophilia is defined by factor levels between 0.05 and 0.40 IU/mL and is characterised by traumatic bleeds. Major issues associated with mild haemophilia are that it may not present for many years after birth, and that awareness, even within families, may be low. Methodological problems exist in diagnosis, such as inconsistencies in results obtained from different assays used to measure factor levels in mild haemophilia. Advances in genetic testing provide insight into diagnosis as well as the likelihood of inhibitor development, which is not uncommon in patients with mild or moderate haemophilia and can increase morbidity. The management of patients with mild haemophilia is a challenge. This review includes suggestions around formulating treatment plans for these patients, encompassing the full spectrum from clinical care of the newly diagnosed neonate to that of the ageing patient with multiple comorbidities. Management strategies consider not only the vast differences in these patients' needs, but also risks of inhibitor development and approaches to optimally engage patients.

Emicizumab, a bispecific antibody recognizing coagulation factors IX and X: how does it actually compare to factor VIII?

During the last decade, the development of improved and novel approaches for the treatment of hemophilia A has expanded tremendously. These approaches include factor VIII (FVIII) with extended half-life (eg, FVIII-Fc and PEGylated FVIII), monoclonal antibodies targeting tissue factor pathway inhibitor, small interfering RNA to reduce antithrombin expression and the bispecific antibody ACE910/emicizumab. Emicizumab is a bispecific antibody recognizing both the enzyme factor IXa and the substrate factor X. By simultaneously binding enzyme and substrate, emicizumab mimics some part of the function exerted by the original cofactor, FVIII, in that it promotes colocalization of the enzyme-substrate complex. However, FVIII and the bispecific antibody are fundamentally different proteins and subject to different modes of regulation. Here, we will provide an overview of the similarities and dissimilarities between FVIII and emicizumab from a biochemical and mechanistical perspective. Such insight might be useful in the clinical decision making for those who apply emicizumab in their practice now or in the future, particularly in view of the thrombotic complications that have been reported when emicizumab is used in combination with FVIII-bypassing agents.

Intensity of factor VIII treatment and the development of inhibitors in non-severe hemophilia A patients: results of the INSIGHT case-control study

Essentials Research suggests that intensive treatment episodes may increase the risk to develop inhibitors. We performed an international nested case-control study with 298 non-severe hemophilia A patients. Surgery and a high dose of factor VIII concentrate were associated with increased inhibitor risk. Physicians need to review arguments for factor VIII dose and elective surgery extra critically.

SUMMARY

Background Inhibitor development is a major complication of treatment with factor VIII concentrates in hemophilia. Findings from studies among severe hemophilia A patients suggest that intensive treatment episodes increase the risk of developing inhibitors. Objectives We set out to assess whether intensive treatment is also associated with an increased risk of inhibitor development among non-severe hemophilia A patients. Patients/Methods We performed a nested case-control study. A total of 75 inhibitor patients (cases) and 223 control patients were selected from 2709 non-severe hemophilia A patients (FVIII:C, 2-40%) of the INSIGHT cohort study. Cases and controls were matched for date of birth and cumulative number of exposure days (EDs) to FVIII concentrates. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate both unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aOR); the latter were adjusted for a priori specified confounders. Results Peak treatment of 5 or 10 consecutive EDs did not increase inhibitor risk (aOR, 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4-2.5; and aOR, 1.8; CI, 0.6-5.5, respectively). Both surgical intervention (aOR, 4.2; CI, 1.7-10.3) and a high mean dose (> 45 IU kg-1 /ED) of FVIII concentrate (aOR, 7.5; CI, 1.6-35.6) were associated with an increased inhibitor risk. Conclusions Our findings suggest that high-dose FVIII treatment and surgery increase the risk of inhibitor development in non-severe hemophilia A. Together with the notion that non-severe hemophilia A patients are at a lifelong risk of inhibitor development, we suggest that in the future physicians will review the arguments for the FVIII dose and elective surgery extra critically.

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.

Treatment burden, haemostatic strategies and real world inhibitor screening practice in non-severe haemophilia A

Inhibitor formation in non-severe haemophilia A is a life-long risk and associated with morbidity and mortality. There is a paucity of data to understand real-world inhibitor screening practice. We evaluated the treatment burden, haemostatic strategies, F8 genotyping and inhibitor screening practices in non-severe haemophilia A in seven London haemophilia centres. In the 2-year study period, 44% (377/853) patients received at least one haemostatic treatment. Seventy-nine percent of those treated (296/377) received factor VIII (FVIII) concentrate. F8 genotype was known in 88% (331/377) of individuals. Eighteen per cent (58/331) had 'high-risk' F8 genotypes. In patients with 'standard-risk' F8 genotypes treated on-demand with FVIII concentrate, 51·3% episodes (243/474) were screened within 1 year. However, poor screening compliance was observed after 'high-risk' treatment episodes. In patients with 'standard-risk' F8 genotypes, 12·3% (28/227) of treatment episodes were screened in the subsequent 6 weeks after surgery or a bleed requiring ≥5 exposure days. Similarly, in the context of 'high-risk' F8 genotypes after any FVIII exposure, only 13·6% (12/88) of episodes were screened within 6 weeks. Further study is required to assess optimal practice of inhibitor screening in non-severe haemophilia A to inform subsequent clinical decisions and provide more robust prevalence data to further understand the underlying immunological mechanism.

Variation in baseline factor VIII concentration in a retrospective cohort of mild/moderate hemophilia A patients carrying identical F8 mutations

Essentials Factor VIII levels vary in mild and moderate hemophilia A (MHA) patients with the same mutation. We aimed to estimate the variation and determinants of factor VIII levels among MHA patients. Age and genotype explain 59% of the observed inter-individual variation in factor VIII levels. Intra-individual variation accounted for 45% of the variation in the three largest mutation groups.

SUMMARY

Background The bleeding phenotype in patients with mild/moderate hemophilia A (MHA) is inversely associated with the residual plasma concentration of factor VIII (FVIII:C). Within a group of patients with the same F8 missense mutation, baseline FVIII:C may vary, because, in healthy individuals, von Willebrand factor (VWF) levels, ABO blood group and age are also known to influence baseline FVIII:C. Our understanding of the pathophysiologic process of the causative genetic event leading to reduced baseline FVIII:C in MHA patients is still limited. Objectives To estimate the variation and determinants of baseline FVIII:C among MHA patients with the same F8 missense mutation. Methods Three hundred and forty-six patients carrying mutations that were present in at least 10 patients in the cohort were selected from the INSIGHT and the RISE studies, which are cohort studies including data of 3534 MHA patients from Europe, Canada, and Australia. Baseline FVIII:C was measured with a one-stage clotting assay. We used Levene's test, univariate and multivariate linear regression, and mixed-model analyses. Results For 59% of patients, the observed variation in baseline FVIII:C was explained by age and genotype. Compared to FVIII:C in patients with Arg612Cys, FVIII:C was significantly different in patients with eight other F8 missense mutations. Intra-individual variation explained 45% of the observed variance in baseline FVIII:C among patients with the same mutation. Conclusion Our results indicate that baseline FVIII:C levels are not exclusively determined by F8 genotype in MHA patients. Insights into other factors may provide potential novel targets for the treatment of MHA.