The case for wider use of recombinant factor VIII concentrates

The introduction of clotting factor concentrates led to major advances in hemophilia care. Rather than simply providing an alternative to plasma-derived concentrates, the introduction in the 1990s of recombinant concentrates added value to replacement therapy particularly with respect to prophylaxis and immune-tolerance induction. While the safety of plasma-derived concentrates has improved considerably, these concentrates may still pose an infectious risk through as-yet unknown pathogens and poor impurity constituent characterization. Recombinant concentrates are increasingly used because of their benefits in pathogen safety, convenience and the potential for unfettered supply. Yet worldwide they remain accessible only to a limited number of patients due to fear of the potential for inhibitor development, overestimation of their costs and underestimation of their benefits. This article reviews the characteristics and properties of recombinant FVIII concentrates to help physicians and patient representatives promote the right of access of patients to the safest products

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

Immune tolerance induction in patients with severe hemophilia with inhibitors: expert panel views and recommendations for clinical practice.

For hemophilia patients with inhibitors, immune tolerance induction (ITI) may help to restore clinical response to Factor (F) VIII or FIX concentrates. Several ITI regimens and protocols exist; however, despite 30 yr of progressive investigation, the ITI evidence base relies mainly on observational data. Expert opinion, experience, and interpretation of the available evidence are therefore valuable to support clinical decision-making. At the Sixth Zürich Haemophilia Forum an expert panel considered recent data and consensus to distill key practice points relating to ITI. The panel supported current recommendations that, where feasible, ITI should be offered early to children and adults (ideally ≤5 yr of inhibitor detection) when inhibitor titers are <10 Bethesda Units, and should be stopped when successful tolerance is achieved. For hemophilia A inhibitor patients, ITI can be founded on recombinant FVIII at high doses. The panel considered that patients with a high bleeding frequency should be offered additional prophylaxis with a bypassing agent. For hemophilia B patients, there may be a benefit to genetic testing to indicate the risk for inhibitors. ITI is often less effective and associated with a greater risk of side effects in these patients. For high-titer inhibitor (≥5 Bethesda Units) hemophilia B patients, the panel advised that bypassing agents could be offered on demand in addition to ITI. Within future ITI regimens there may be a role for additional immunosuppressant therapies. Participants agreed that research is needed to find alternatives to ITI therapy that offer durable and sustained effects and reduced rates of complications. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Pain and pain management in haemophilia

Joint pain is common in haemophilia and may be acute or chronic. Effective pain management in haemophilia is essential to reduce the burden that pain imposes on patients. However, the choice of appropriate pain-relieving measures is challenging, as there is a complex interplay of factors affecting pain perception. This can manifest as differences in patients’ experiences and response to pain, which require an individualized approach to pain management. Prophylaxis with factor replacement reduces the likelihood of bleeds and bleed-related pain, whereas on-demand therapy ensures rapid bleed resolution and pain relief. Although use of replacement or bypassing therapy is often the first intervention for pain, additional pain relief strategies may be required. There is an array of analgesic options, but consideration should be paid to the adverse effects of each class. Nevertheless, a combination of medications that act at different points in the pain pathway may be beneficial. Nonpharmacological measures may also help patients and include active coping strategies; rest, ice, compression, and elevation; complementary therapies; and physiotherapy. Joint aspiration may also reduce acute joint pain, and joint steroid injections may alleviate chronic pain. In the longer term, increasing use of prophylaxis or performing surgery may be necessary to reduce the burden of pain caused by the degenerative effects of repeated bleeds. Whichever treatment option is chosen, it is important to monitor pain and adjust patient management accordingly. Beyond specific pain management approaches, ongoing collaboration between multidisciplinary teams, which should include physiotherapists and pain specialists, may improve outcomes for patients.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.

Joint disease, the hallmark of haemophilia: What issues and challenges remain despite the development of effective therapies?

Although effective therapies for haemophilia have been available for decades, the prevention and treatment of joint disease remain major clinical concerns for all haemophilia patients. Early identification of joint disease is vital to initiate or modify treatment, and prevent arthropathy. However, there remains a need for more sensitive and accurate methods, which may also detect improvement in patient outcome with new therapies or different prophylaxis regimens. These topics were explored at the Ninth Zürich Haemophilia Forum. A summary of our shared views on the limitations of current assessment methods, and the potential advantages of more recently developed tools, is provided. Ultrasonography enables more frequent routine monitoring and the early detection of joint disease. In addition, serological markers may provide suitable biomarkers of early arthropathy. To prevent arthropathy, in our opinion, prophylaxis is key to prevent joint bleeds and subsequent initiation of the 'vicious circle of joint disease'. However, issues remain, including when prophylaxis should be started, stopped, and if it is efficacious for inhibitor patients. Once joint bleeding has occurred, enhanced on-demand treatment should be considered. For more advanced stages of joint disease, the issues regarding the treatment options available are explored. Radiosynovectomy should be performed to treat chronic synovitis, and may prevent the need for elective orthopaedic surgery (EOS). Ultimately, however, EOS can be considered once all other treatment options have been explored. While, bypassing agents have facilitated the use of EOS in inhibitor patients, a multidisciplinary approach and careful surveillance is required for good patient outcome

Beyond stopping the bleed: short-term episodic prophylaxis with recombinant activated factor FVII in haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

Preventing haemarthroses and arthropathy is a major challenge in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors, as treatment options are limited. One potential strategy is short-term episodic prophylaxis, which extends bypassing agent therapy beyond the resolution of bleeding to include the post-bleed inflammatory phase. At the 13 Zürich Haemophilia Forum, an expert panel reviewed the rationale behind this strategy, explored its current use with recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) and considered treatment monitoring and optimisation. Two protocols are currently used for short-term episodic prophylaxis, both of which stipulate on-demand rFVIIa until resolution of bleeding, followed by daily dosing for ≥3 days to prevent re-bleeds. Short-term episodic prophylaxis should be individualised to optimise outcomes, perhaps through early treatment initiation or by combining rFVIIa with other treatments (e.g. factor VIII, tranexamic acid). Encouraging treatment compliance can also improve outcomes. Additionally, there is a need to develop objective clinical outcome measures, biomarkers and imaging protocols that can monitor treatment outcomes and joint disease in patients with inhibitors. A proactive approach incorporating a systematic package of care is needed. Currently, short-term episodic prophylaxis with rFVIIa may be an alternative treatment option to on-demand treatment for patients with inhibitors

Rationale for individualizing haemophilia care.

Owing to the heterogeneity in the clinical phenotype of haemophilia A and B, it is now recognized that disease severity (based on factor VIII/IX activity) may no longer be the most appropriate guide for treatment and that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach is unlikely to achieve optimal therapy. Based on the present literature and consensus views of a group of experts in the field, this article highlights key gaps in the understanding of the diverse relationships between bleeding phenotype and factors such as joint health, genetic susceptibility, laboratory parameters, quality of life and management of pain. Early prophylaxis is a potential 'gold standard' therapy and issues surrounding inhibitor development, variations in its clinical use and long-term outcomes are discussed. Comprehensive treatment should be individualized for all patients (including those with mild or moderate haemophilia and carriers). Wherever possible all patients should be given prophylaxis. However, adult patients with a milder haemophilia phenotype may be candidates for ceasing prophylaxis and switching to on-demand treatment. Regardless, all treatment (on-demand and prophylaxis) should be tailored towards both the patient's personal needs and their clinical profile. In addition, as the associations between risk factors (psychosocial, condition-related and treatment-related) and clinical features are unique to each patient, an individualized approach is required to enable patients to alter their behaviour in response to them. The practical methodologies needed to reach this goal of individualized haemophilia care, and the health economic implications of this strategy, are ongoing topics for discussion

Outcome measures for adult and pediatric hemophilia patients with inhibitors

Recent advancements in almost all aspects of hemophilia treatment have vastly improved patient care and management, and new and emerging treatments hold the promise of further progress. However, there remains a scarcity of data on long-term outcomes in hemophilia, particularly among those patients with inhibitors, for whom no validated outcome assessment tools are currently available. At the 15th Zürich Haemophilia Forum, an expert panel reviewed the most important outcome measures in inhibitor patients and considered the challenges associated with assessing outcomes in this population. A framework for outcome assessment in inhibitor patients incorporates traditional hemophilia outcome measures, such as bleed frequency and mortality, alongside measures of health, functioning, disability, social participation, quality of life, and economic considerations. It is important to remember that inhibitor patients differ in their clinical needs, perspectives, and priorities according to age, inhibitor status, degree of joint disease, and activity levels; as a result, the relative importance of different outcome measures will change throughout an inhibitor patient's life. Challenges inherent in measuring long-term outcomes in inhibitor patients include the small number of known patients, the subjective nature of many outcome assessment tools, and the risk of overburdening patients with repeated requests to complete questionnaires or participate in studies. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reach consensus on the most important and appropriate assessment tools for measuring outcomes in this population. These tools should ideally be standardized, easily applied, and internationally applicable in order to collect and generate quality outcome data