Search

The mainstay of hemophilia treatment is to prevent bleeding through regular long-term prophylaxis and to control acute breakthrough bleeds. Various treatment options are currently available for prophylaxis, and treatment decision-making is a challenging and multifaceted process of identifying the most appropriate option for each patient. A multidisciplinary expert panel convened to develop a practical, patient-oriented algorithm to facilitate shared treatment decision-making between clinicians and patients. Key variables were identified, and an algorithm proposed based on five variables: bleeding phenotype, musculoskeletal status, treatment adherence, venous access, and lifestyle. A complementary, patient-focused preference tool was also hypothesized, with the aim of exploring individual patients' priorities, preferences, and goals. It is hoped that the proposed algorithm and the hypothesized patient preference tool will assist in selecting a treatment for each patient that is as efficient as possible in preventing bleeds while also accounting for the patient's expectations and priorities.

New therapeutic agents for haemophilia with inhibitors that are in development or already licensed are expected to provide transformative treatment options. Many of these new therapies are not based on simply replacing the missing factor; new strategies include bispecific antibody technology that mimics factor VIII coagulation function (emicizumab), and inhibition of anticoagulant proteins such as tissue factor pathway inhibitor (eg PF-06741086) and antithrombin (eg fitusiran). These agents are administered subcutaneously and should significantly reduce treatment burden and increase the ability to deliver prophylaxis for patients. Limited real-world data and validated practical guidance on these recently licensed/upcoming treatments resulted in the authors convening to discuss recommendations on their use. Emicizumab is currently the only licenced nonfactor therapy; thus, our recommendations focus on this product. Target candidates for emicizumab prophylaxis are difficult-to-treat patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors and/or venous access issues, frequent bleeds and target joints. In case of breakthrough bleeding while receiving emicizumab, patients still require treatment with bypassing agents; the adjunct treatment of choice is recombinant activated factor VII. This treatment is also recommended to prevent bleeds in patients with inhibitors undergoing surgery. Our recommendations on suitable laboratory assays and monitoring new products, as well as the benefit of patient-reported outcomes (such as pain and physical activity levels), are included. We also briefly discuss future treatment options for patients with haemophilia B and inhibitors. Although these nonfactor treatments offer great promise, further data and real-world evidence are needed.

Background: There are only a few studies in patients with haemophilia (PWH) that examined both quality of life and depressive symptoms, with only few studies examining their association. Aim of this study was to examine the association between depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in PWH from Croatia and Slovenia. Subjects and methods: A total of 112 adult PWH on prophylactic (73%) or on-demand (27%) treatment were included in the study (median age 46 years, range 18-73 years). Depressive symptoms were assessed with BDI-II, HRQoL with SF-36v2, demographic and socioeconomic data were collected using a questionnaire, and clinical data were obtained from medical records. Results: All HRQoL scores were significantly negatively correlated with BDI-II in the -0.42 to -0.70 range (all p<0.05). Sociodemographic and clinical variables explained 28-51% of HRQoL variance scores. Depressive symptoms explained additional variance for six HRQoL domain scores, with incremental variance being larger for mental domain scores (ranging between 10- 27%), and for Mental Component Summary score (26%). Conclusions: This study’s findings support that having depressive symptoms is associated with HRQoL of PWH, more so in the mental health than in the physical health domains.

The standard therapy for patients with haemophilia is prophylactic treatment with replacement factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX). Patients who develop inhibitors against FVIII/FIX face an increased risk of bleeding, and the likelihood of early development of progressive arthropathy, alongside higher treatment-related costs. Bypassing agents can be used to prevent and control bleeding, as well as the recently-licensed prophylaxis, emicizumab, but their efficacy is less predictable than that of factor replacement therapy. Antibody eradication, by way of immune tolerance induction (ITI), is still the preferred management strategy for treating patients with inhibitors. This approach is successful in most patients, but some are difficult to tolerize and/or are unresponsive to ITI, and they represent the most complicated patients to treat. However, there are limited clinical data and guidelines available to help guide physicians in formulating the next treatment steps in these patients. This review summarizes currently available treatment options for patients with inhibitors, focussing on ITI regimens and those ITI strategies that may be used in difficult-to-treat patients. Some alternative, non-ITI approaches for inhibitor management are also proposed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Research has been lacking on the natural history, complications, and treatment of haemophilia B, which is less common than haemophilia A and was recognized as a distinct clinical entity in 1947. Although the two diseases share the same clinical manifestations, they differ in causative mutation, risk of inhibitor development, and patient quality of life. Frequently debated is whether haemophilia B is as clinically severe as haemophilia A, with much of the published data on overall and haemophilia-specific health outcomes suggesting that haemophilia B may have a less severe clinical phenotype. However, although fewer haemophilia B than haemophilia A patients appear to experience bleeding, bleeds are just as severe. We review distinguishing characteristics of haemophilia B and its treatment, including management strategies for neonates, therapeutic approaches for patients who develop inhibitors, pharmacokinetics of factor IX concentrates administered as replacement therapy, and potential future treatments.

Sažetak. Unatrag nekoliko godina u hematologiji i onkologiji globalno sve češći problem postaje prikladna opskrba „starijim i manje zanimljivim“ kemoterapeuticima. Zbog povremene nestašice karmustina, jednog od osnovnih kemoterapeutika pri kondicioniranju prije autologne transplantacije krvotvornih matičnih stanica (ATKS) u oboljelih od limfoma, u našem se centru od 2016. godine on zamjenjuje bendamustinom. U ovom radu retrospektivno analiziramo tijek ATKS-a u 41 bolesnika koji su primili bendamustin u sklopu protokola BeEAM te ga uspoređujemo s tijekom ATKS-a u 40 bolesnika koji su primili karmustin u sklopu protokola BEAM. Medijan oporavka vrijednosti neutrofila (> 0,5 × 109/l) u skupini koja je primila bendamustin iznosio je 11 dana, dok je u skupini kondicioniranoj karmustinom iznosio 10 dana. Medijan oporavka vrijednosti trombocita (> 20 × 109/l) bio je duži kod skupine koja je primala bendamustin (16 prema 13 dana) te su ti bolesnici bili duže ovisni o transfuzijama eritrocita (7 prema 5 dana). Infektivne komplikacije nisu bile češće nakon primjene bendamustina, ali smo nakon primjene karmustina imali veću pojavu mukozitisa II. – III. stupnja (35% prema 12%). Nakon primjene bendamustina zabilježen je jedan slučaj nefrotoksičnosti i kardiotoksičnosti terapije, dok kod primjene karmustina te komplikacije nisu zabilježene. Pri upotrebi bendamustina kod kondicioniranja u naših bolesnika u ovom trenutku nije utvrđena znatnija hematološka toksičnost u odnosu prema karmustinu, ali su prisutni dulji period oporavka vrijednosti trombocita te niža incidencija mukozitisa., Summary. Inadequate supply of „old and less interesting“ chemotherapeutic agents is becoming a global issue in hemato-oncology today. In 2016 we were faced with occasional carmustin shortage, one of the most commonly used in autologous transplant conditioning regimens for lymphoma in our centre, so we decided to use bendamustin instead. We performed a retrospective analysis of 41 patients treated at our centre who had received bendamustin within BeEAM protocol and compared them with 40 patients who had received carmustin within BEAM protocol. Both protocols were used as conditioning protocols before autologous stem cell transplantation. Neutrophil recovery median following transplantation (ANC>0,5x109/l) was 11 days in the bendamustin group in comparison to 10 days in the carmustin group.Platelets recovery median following transplantation (PLT>20x109/l) was longer in the bendamustin group (16 vs.13 days) as was blood transfusion dependency (7 vs. 5 days). Infectious complications were not more frequent after bendamustin, but grade II–III mucositis was more frequent in patients who received carmustin (35% vs.12%). Following bendamustin we had one reported case of nephrotoxicity and cardiac toxicity, not reported with carmustin. Bendamustin has shown similar hematologic toxicity compared to carmustin but a longer platelet recovery period and a lower mucositis incidence.

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 15 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.