The effect of emicizumab prophylaxis on health-related outcomes in persons with haemophilia A with inhibitors: HAVEN 1 Study

Introduction: Persons with haemophilia A (PwHA) with inhibitors to factor VIII often experience decreased health-related outcomes. In HAVEN 1 (NCT02622321), there was a statistically significant reduction in bleeding with emicizumab prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis. Aim: Describe health-related outcomes in PwHA with inhibitors in HAVEN 1. Methods: PwHA with inhibitors aged 6512\ua0years previously on episodic bypassing agents (BPAs) were randomized to emicizumab prophylaxis (Arm A; n\ua0=\ua035) or no prophylaxis (Arm B; n\ua0=\ua018); participants previously on BPA prophylaxis received emicizumab prophylaxis (Arm C; n\ua0=\ua049). Health-related outcomes assessed at baseline and monthly thereafter: Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL), Haemophilia-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Children Short Form (Haemo-QoL SF), EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) index utility score (IUS) and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and work/school days. Days hospitalized also recorded. Results: At week 25, differences (ANCOVA) in adjusted mean scores (95% confidence interval) favoured Arm A versus B for Haem-A-QoL \u201cTotal\u201d score (14.0 [5.6, 22.5]; P\ua0=\ua00.002) and \u201cPhysical Health\u201d (21.6 [7.9, 35.2]; P\ua0=\ua00.003); EQ-VAS ( 129.7 [ 1217.6, 121.82]; P\ua0=\ua00.017); and IUS ( 120.16 [ 120.25, 120.07]; P\ua0=\ua00.001); mean scores are comparable in Arms A and C. Throughout the study, a greater proportion of participants on emicizumab prophylaxis than no prophylaxis exceeded questionnaire-specific responder thresholds. Mean proportion of missed work days and number of days hospitalized were lower with emicizumab prophylaxis than no prophylaxis. Conclusions: In PwHA with inhibitors, emicizumab prophylaxis was associated with substantial and meaningful improvements in health-related outcomes

Severe hematotoxicity after CD19 CAR-T therapy is associated with suppressive immune dysregulation and limited CAR-T expansion

Prolonged cytopenias after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy are a significant clinical problem and the underlying pathophysiology remains poorly understood. Here, we investigated how (CAR) T cell expansion dynamics and serum proteomics affect neutrophil recovery phenotypes after CD19-directed CAR T cell therapy. Survival favored patients with "intermittent" neutrophil recovery (e.g., recurrent neutrophil dips) compared to either "quick" or "aplastic" recovery. While intermittent patients displayed increased CAR T cell expansion, aplastic patients exhibited an unfavorable relationship between expansion and tumor burden. Proteomics of patient serum collected at baseline and in the first month after CAR-T therapy revealed higher markers of endothelial dysfunction, inflammatory cytokines, macrophage activation, and T cell suppression in the aplastic phenotype group. Prolonged neutrophil aplasia thus occurs in patients with systemic immune dysregulation at baseline with subsequently impaired CAR-T expansion and myeloid-related inflammatory changes. The association between neutrophil recovery and survival outcomes highlights critical interactions between host hematopoiesis and the immune state stimulated by CAR-T infusion

Inferior outcomes of EU versus US patients treated with CD19 CAR-T for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma: association with differences in tumor burden, systemic inflammation, bridging therapy utilization, and CAR-T product use

Real-world evidence suggests a trend toward inferior survival of patients receiving CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in Europe (EU) and with tisagenlecleucel. The underlying logistic, patient- and disease-related reasons for these discrepancies remain poorly understood. In this multicenter retrospective observational study, we studied the patient-individual journey from CAR-T indication to infusion, baseline features, and survival outcomes in 374 patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) or axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) in EU and the United States (US). Compared with US patients, EU patients had prolonged indication-to-infusion intervals (66 versus 50 d; P < 0.001) and more commonly received intermediary therapies (holding and/or bridging therapy, 94% in EU versus 74% in US; P < 0.001). Baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (median 321 versus 271 U/L; P = 0.02) and ferritin levels (675 versus 425 ng/mL; P = 0.004) were significantly elevated in the EU cohort. Overall, we observed inferior survival in EU patients (median progression-free survival [PFS] 3.1 versus 9.2 months in US; P < 0.001) and with tisa-cel (3.2 versus 9.2 months with axi-cel; P < 0.001). On multivariate Lasso modeling, nonresponse to bridging, elevated ferritin, and increased C-reactive protein represented independent risks for treatment failure. Weighing these variables into a patient-individual risk balancer (high risk [HR] balancer), we found higher levels in EU versus US and tisa-cel versus axi-cel cohorts. Notably, superior PFS with axi-cel was exclusively evident in patients at low risk for progression (according to the HR balancer), but not in high-risk patients. These data demonstrate that inferior survival outcomes in EU patients are associated with longer time-to-infusion intervals, higher tumor burden/LDH levels, increased systemic inflammatory markers, and CAR-T product use

How to discuss gene therapy for haemophilia? A patient and physician perspective

Gene therapy has the potential to revolutionise treatment for patients with haemophilia and is close to entering clinical practice. While factor concentrates have improved outcomes, individuals still face a lifetime of injections, pain, progressive joint damage, the potential for inhibitor development and impaired quality of life. Recently published studies in adeno‐associated viral (AAV) vector‐mediated gene therapy have demonstrated improvement in endogenous factor levels over sustained periods, significant reduction in annualised bleed rates, lower exogenous factor usage and thus far a positive safety profile. In making the shared decision to proceed with gene therapy for haemophilia, physicians should make it clear that research is ongoing and that there are remaining evidence gaps, such as long‐term safety profiles and duration of treatment effect. The eligibility criteria for gene therapy trials mean that key patient groups may be excluded, eg children/adolescents, those with liver or kidney dysfunction and those with a prior history of factor inhibitors or pre‐existing neutralising AAV antibodies. Gene therapy offers a life‐changing opportunity for patients to reduce their bleeding risk while also reducing or abrogating the need for exogenous factor administration. Given the expanding evidence base, both physicians and patients will need sources of clear and reliable information to be able to discuss and judge the risks and benefits of treatment