Plasma-derived versus recombinant factor concentrates in PUPs: a never ending debate?

Epidemiological Challenges in Rare Bleeding Disorders: FVIII Inhibitor Incidence in Haemophilia A Patients-A Known Issue of Unknown Origin

There is a broad range of factor products approved in Germany for haemophilia A treatment. Since the introduction of recombinant coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) products in the 1990s, there has been substantial debate whether there is a difference in inhibitor incidence between single FVIII products or product classes. Neither haemophilia registries nor clinical studies, including a randomised controlled clinical trial, provided a consistent and definite answer. The reasons were mainly related to methodological challenges in conducting controlled studies in a rare disease. In this analysis, the most relevant epidemiological challenges and main problems were examined, including study bias, potential overlap of individual studies and advanced development of therapy and methods in the course of time. Meta-analyses on two levels showed that therapies using recombinant products resulted in different event rates when compared to plasma-derived products. These results are accompanied by substantial study heterogeneity evidenced by Cochran's Q tests. Only three studies have been identified that meet the standards of current clinical guidance. To finally resolve this ongoing and disputable safety issue of replacement therapy, collaboration among registry owners, academia and regulators must be fostered.

Impact of the Survey of Inhibitors in Plasma-Product Exposed Toddlers (SIPPET) study and its post hoc analyses on clinical practice in the United States: A survey of Haemophilia and Thrombosis Research Society members

INTRODUCTION

A recent randomized trial, the Survey of Inhibitors in Plasma-Product Exposed Toddlers (SIPPET), confirmed that exposure to recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products doubled the risk of inhibitor development compared to plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII) in previously untreated (or minimally treated) patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia A. SIPPET post hoc analyses showed that early exposure to rFVIII was more immunogenic and that rFVIII could harm low-risk PUPs with non-null mutations. Clinical implications of SIPPET findings for the haemophilia community were unclear.

AIM

Study the impact of the SIPPET study and its post hoc analyses on clinical practice for PUPs with severe haemophilia A in the United States.

METHODS

Members of the North American Hemophilia and Thrombosis Research Society (HTRS) completed two online questionnaires related to SIPPET publications and PUP management (study period: 12/2016-8/2018).

RESULTS

Over 50% participated the study. Sixty per cent expressed methodological concerns about the SIPPET study, yet 55% shared the study with new families. During the study period, rFVIII selection fell from 43/61 (70%) to 15/54 (28%) while use of pdFVIII and shared decision-making increased from 5/61 (8%) to 9/54 (17%) and from 4/61 (7%) to 10/54 (19%), respectively. Based on post hoc analyses, 44/54 (82%) would change their clinical practice with 31/44 (70%) using pdFVIII for PUPs. Barriers to translation of SIPPET analyses included study design concerns, non-inclusion of novel therapies, inability to perform genetic testing at diagnosis and risk of plasma-derived infections.

CONCLUSION

Despite the methodological concerns about the SIPPET study, this Grade I evidence appears to have influenced the clinical practice of haemophilia providers in the United States.