Dilemmas on emicizumab in children with haemophilia A: A survey of strategies from PedNet centres.

INTRODUCTION Haemophilia A care has changed with the introduction of emicizumab. Experience on the youngest children is still scarce and clinical practice varies between haemophilia treatment centres. AIM We aimed to assess the current clinical practice on emicizumab prophylaxis within PedNet, a collaborative research platform for paediatricians treating children with haemophilia. METHODS An electronic survey was sent to all PedNet members (n = 32) between October 2022 and February 2023. The survey included questions on the availability of emicizumab, on the practice of initiating prophylaxis in previously untreated or minimally treated patients (PUPs or MTPs) and emicizumab use in patients with or without inhibitors. RESULTS All but four centres (28/32; 88%) responded. Emicizumab was available in clinical practice in 25/28 centres (89%), and in 3/28 for selected patients only (e.g. with inhibitors). Emicizumab was the preferred choice for prophylaxis in PUPs or MTPs in 20/25 centres; most (85%) started emicizumab prophylaxis before 1 year of age (30% before 6 months of age) and without concomitant FVIII (16/20; 80%). After the loading dose, 13/28 centres administered the recommended dosing, while the others adjusted the interval of injections to give whole vials. In inhibitor patients, the use of emicizumab during ITI was common, with low-dose ITI being the preferred protocol. CONCLUSION Most centres choose to initiate prophylaxis with emicizumab before 12 months of age and without concomitant FVIII. In inhibitor patients, ITI is mostly given in addition to emicizumab, but there was no common practice on how to proceed after successful ITI

Primary prophylaxis in children with severe haemophilia A and B-Implementation over the last 20 years as illustrated in real-world data in the PedNet cohorts

INTRODUCTION: The prophylactic regimen in children with severe haemophilia is suggested in various publications and guidelines. Few data exist on its implementation in clinical practice.AIM: To investigate the implementation of primary prophylaxis based on real-life data from PedNet during the last 20 years.METHODS: All children from the PedNet cohort (n = 1260) with severe haemophilia A (SHA) or severe haemophilia B (SHB), FVIII/IX < .01 IU/mL, born between 2000 and 2009 (Cohort I; SHA n = 662; SHB n = 88) and 2010-2019 (Cohort II; SHA n = 598; SHB n = 94) were included.RESULTS: In SHA, the median age at start of prophylaxis was 17.3 months (IQR; 12.5-26.1) in Cohort I which decreased to 13.1 months (IQR; 10.4-19.1) in Cohort II (p < .000). "Once-a-week" prophylaxis at start increased from 49% to 68% (SHA) and 38% to 70% (SHB). FVIII doses were reduced from median 43.5 (IQR; 34.6-49.0) to 30.9 IU/kg (IQR; 26.3-46.3), while dosing with FIX did not change. After 2010 approximately 60% of the patients with SHA and SHB started prophylaxis before any joint bleed. The number of CVADs needed in both cohorts was around 30%. Incidences of inhibitors were unchanged: SHA (∼31%) and SHB (∼10%). Sporadic cases were diagnosed significantly later (median 8.3 months; IQR; 3.7-11.9) and they had more joint bleeds before start of prophylaxis.CONCLUSION: Primary prophylaxis nowadays starts at an earlier age: before any joint bleed (60% of patients with SHA and SHB). Approximately 70% started on a once-weekly schedule with significantly reduced doses in SHA but unchanged in SHB