Joint health and treatment modalities in Nordic patients with moderate haemophilia A and B - The MoHem study

Introduction The prevalence of arthropathy in moderate haemophilia A (MHA) and B (MHB) is not well known. Aim We evaluated joint health in Nordic patients in relation to their treatment modality. Methods A cross-sectional, multicentre study covering MHA and MHB in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Arthropathy was evaluated by ultrasound (HEAD-US) and Haemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS). Results We report on 145 patients: median age 28 years (IQR 13-52) and 61% MHA. Baseline factor VIII/factor IX activity (FVIII/FIX:C) was 2 IU/dL (median) (IQR 2-4): lower for MHB (2 IU/dL, IQR 1-2) than MHA (3 IU/dL, IQR 2-4) (P <.01). Eighty-five per cent of MHA and 73% MHB had a history of haemarthrosis (P = .07). Age at first joint bleed was lower for MHA (5 years [median], IQR 3-7) than MHB (7 years, IQR 5-12) (P = .01). Thirty-eight per cent received prophylaxis, started at median 10 years of age (IQR 4-24). Median joint bleeds and serious other bleeds during the last 12 months were both zero (IQR 0-1). Total HEAD-US captured 0/48 points (median) (IQR 0-2) and HJHS 4/120 points (IQR 1-10) with strong correlation between them (r = .72). FVIII/FIX:CPeer reviewe

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of bleeding outcomes in severe haemophilia A: Comparing valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene therapy, emicizumab prophylaxis, and FVIII replacement prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION: Head-to-head evaluation of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, the first gene therapy approved for haemophilia A, with emicizumab is not available. Therefore, phase 3 trial data were indirectly compared. AIM: To compare bleeding rates in trials evaluating 6 × 1013  vg/kg valoctocogene roxaparvovec (GENEr8-1; NCT03370913), 1.5 mg/kg emicizumab dosed every week (HAVEN 3; NCT02847637), and FVIII prophylaxis (270-902) in participants with severe haemophilia A (FVIII ≤1 IU/dL). METHODS: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab and FVIII prophylaxis as used in 270-902 versus emicizumab cross-trial comparisons were performed using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Individual participant data from GENEr8-1 and 270-902 were weighted to equalise aggregate participant baseline characteristics from HAVEN 3. After MAIC weighting, annualised bleeding rates (ABR) and proportions of participants without bleeds were compared for treated bleeds, all bleeds, treated joint bleeds, and treated spontaneous bleeds. RESULTS: After MAIC weighting, ABR for all bleeds was statistically significantly lower with valoctocogene roxaparvovec than emicizumab (rate ratio [95% CI], .55 [.33-.93]). Additionally, significantly higher proportions of participants had no treated joint bleeds (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.75 [1.20-6.31]) and no treated bleeds (3.25 [1.53-6.90]) with valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab. When compared with the mainly standard half-life FVIII prophylaxis regimens in 270-902, mean ABRs (except for all bleeds) were significantly lower, and significantly higher proportions reported 0 bleeds for all outcomes with emicizumab. CONCLUSION: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec provided generally lower bleeding rates and higher probability of no bleeds, including treated joint bleeds, than emicizumab. Emicizumab was more effective than FVIII prophylaxis regimens used in 270-902

F8 haplotype and inhibitor risk: results from the Hemophilia Inhibitor Genetics Study (HIGS) Combined Cohort.

To access publisher's full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field.Ancestral background, specifically African descent, confers higher risk for development of inhibitory antibodies to factor VIII (FVIII) in haemophilia A. It has been suggested that differences in the distribution of FVIII gene (F8) haplotypes, and mismatch between endogenous F8 haplotypes and those comprising products used for treatment could contribute to risk. Data from the Hemophilia Inhibitor Genetics Study (HIGS) Combined Cohort were used to determine the association between F8 haplotype 3 (H3) vs. haplotypes 1 and 2 (H1 + H2) and inhibitor risk among individuals of genetically determined African descent. Other variables known to affect inhibitor risk including type of F8 mutation and human leucocyte antigen (HLA) were included in the analysis. A second research question regarding risk related to mismatch in endogenous F8 haplotype and recombinant FVIII products used for treatment was addressed. Haplotype 3 was associated with higher inhibitor risk among those genetically identified (N = 49) as of African ancestry, but the association did not remain significant after adjustment for F8 mutation type and the HLA variables. Among subjects of all racial ancestries enrolled in HIGS who reported early use of recombinant products (N = 223), mismatch in endogenous haplotype and the FVIII proteins constituting the products used did not confer greater risk for inhibitor development. Haplotype 3 was not an independent predictor of inhibitor risk. Furthermore, our findings did not support a higher risk of inhibitors in the presence of a haplotype mismatch between the FVIII molecule infused and that of the individual.Baxter BioScience Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health (NIH) HHSN261200800001E Wyeth Research Fund at Malmo University Hospital NIH, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development R01-HD-41224 Bayer Inspiration Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Grifols, Inc. Baxter Biogen Idec Biotest CSL Behring Grifols Inspiration Biopharmaceuticals NovoNordisk Octapharma Swedish Orphan Biovitrum Wyeth/Pfize

The history and evolution of the clinical effectiveness of haemophilia type a treatment: a systematic review.

First evidence of cases of haemophilia dates from ancient Egypt, but it was when Queen Victoria from England in the 19th century transmitted this illness to her descendants, when it became known as the "royal disease". Last decades of the 20th century account for major discoveries that improved the life expectancy and quality of life of these patients. The history and evolution of haemophilia healthcare counts ups and downs. The introduction of prophylactic schemes during the 1970s have proved to be more effective that the classic on-demand replacement of clotting factors, nevertheless many patients managed with frequent plasma transfusions or derived products became infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C virus during the 1980s and 1990s. Recombinant factor VIII inception has decreased the risk of blood borne infections and restored back longer life expectancies. Main concerns for haemophilia healthcare are shifting from the pure clinical aspects to the economic considerations of long-term replacement therapy. Nowadays researchers' attention has been placed on the future costs and cost-effectiveness of costly long-term treatment. Equity considerations are relevant as well, and alternative options for less affluent countries are under the scope of further research. The aim of this review was to assess the evidence of different treatment options for haemophilia type A over the past four decades, focusing on the most important technological advances that have influenced the natural course of this "royal disease"

International consensus recommendations on the management of people with haemophilia B

Haemophilia B is a rare X-linked genetic deficiency of coagulation factor IX (FIX) that, if untreated, can cause recurrent and disabling bleeding, potentially leading to severe arthropathy and/or life-threatening haemorrhage. Recent decades have brought significant improvements in haemophilia B management, including the advent of recombinant FIX and extended half-life FIX. This therapeutic landscape continues to evolve with several non-factor replacement therapies and gene therapies under investigation. Given the rarity of haemophilia B, the evidence base and clinical experience on which to establish clinical guidelines are relatively sparse and are further challenged by features that are distinct from haemophilia A, precluding extrapolation of existing haemophilia A guidelines. Due to the paucity of formal haemophilia B-specific clinical guidance, an international Author Group was convened to develop a clinical practice framework. The group comprised 15 haematology specialists from Europe, Australia, Japan, Latin America and North America, covering adult and paediatric haematology, laboratory medicine and biomedical science. A hybrid approach combining a systematic review of haemophilia B literature with discussion of clinical experience utilized a modified Delphi format to develop a comprehensive set of clinical recommendations. This approach resulted in 29 recommendations for the clinical management of haemophilia B across five topics, including product treatment choice, therapeutic agent laboratory monitoring, pharmacokinetics considerations, inhibitor management and preparing for gene therapy. It is anticipated that this clinical practice framework will complement existing guidelines in the management of people with haemophilia B in routine clinical practice and could be adapted and applied across different regions and countries