Immunosuppression for acquired hemophilia A: results from the European Acquired Haemophilia Registry (EACH2)

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is an autoimmune disease caused by an autoantibody to factor VIII. Patients are at risk of severe and fatal hemorrhage until the inhibitor is eradicated, and guidelines recommend immunosuppression as soon as the diagnosis has been made. The optimal immunosuppressive regimen is unclear; therefore, data from 331 patients entered into the prospective EACH2 registry were analyzed. Steroids combined with cyclophosphamide resulted in more stable complete remission (70%), defined as inhibitor undetectable, factor VIII more than 70 IU/dL and immunosuppression stopped, than steroids alone (48%) or rituximab-based regimens (59%). Propensity score-matched analysis controlling for age, sex, factor VIII level, inhibitor titer, and underlying etiology confirmed that stable remission was more likely with steroids and cyclophosphamide than steroids alone (odds ratio = 3.25; 95% CI, 1.51-6.96; P <.003). The median time to complete remission was approximately 5 weeks for steroids with or without cyclo-phosphamide; rituximab-based regimens required approximately twice as long. Immunoglobulin administration did not improve outcome. Second-line therapy was successful in approximately 60% of cases that failed first- line therapy. Outcome was not affected by the choice of first-line therapy. The likelihood of achieving stable remission was not affected by underlying etiology but was influenced by the presenting inhibitor titer and FVIII level. (Blood. 2012;120(1):47-55

Compliance with Early Long-Term Prophylaxis Guidelines for Severe Hemophilia A

International audienceObjectives: To evaluate the applicability and compliance with guidelines for early initiation of long-term prophylaxis in infants with severe hemophilia A and to identify factors associated with guideline compliance.Study design: This real-world, prospective, multicenter, population-based FranceCoag study included almost all French boys with severe hemophilia A, born between 2000 and 2009 (ie, after guideline implementation).Results: We included 333 boys in the study cohort. The cumulative incidence of long-term prophylaxis use was 61.2% at 3 years of age vs 9.5% in a historical cohort of 39 boys born in 1996 (ie, before guideline implementation). The guidelines were not applicable in 23.1% of patients due to an early intracranial bleeding or inhibitor development. Long-term prophylaxis was delayed in 10.8% of patients. In the multivariate analysis, 2 variables were significantly associated with "timely long-term prophylaxis" as compared with "delayed long-term prophylaxis": hemophilia treating center location in the southern regions of France (OR 23.6, 95% CI 1.9-286.7, P = .013 vs Paris area) and older age at long-term prophylaxis indication (OR 7.2 for each additional year, 95% CI 1.2-43.2, P = .031). Long-term prophylaxis anticipation was observed in 39.0% of patients. Earlier birth year (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, P = .010 for birth years 2005-2009 vs 2000-2004) and age at first factor replacement (OR 1.9 for each additional year, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, P = .005) were significantly associated with "long-term prophylaxis guideline compliance" vs "long-term prophylaxis anticipation."Conclusions: This study suggests that long-term prophylaxis guidelines are associated with increased long-term prophylaxis use. However, early initiation of long-term prophylaxis remains a challenge