Search

Introduction: Hemophilia A is an inherited bleeding disorder caused by pathogenic variants in the factor VIII gene (F8), which leads to factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is a therapeutic approach to eradicate alloantibodies (inhibitors) against exogenous FVIII in people with inherited hemophilia A. Few studies have evaluated the role of F8 variants on ITI outcome., Material and Methods: We included people with severe hemophilia A (FVIII ˂ 1 international units/dL) and high-responding inhibitors (≥ 5 Bethesda units/mL lifelong) who underwent a first course of ITI. Socio-demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected. ITI outcomes were defined as total, partial successes, and failure. Detection of intron 1 and 22 inversions was performed by polymerase-chain reaction, followed by F8 sequencing., Results: We included 168 people with inherited hemophilia A and high-responding inhibitors, median age 6 years at ITI start. Intron 22 inversion was the most prevalent variant (53.6 %), followed by nonsense (16.1 %), small insertion/deletion (11.3 %), and large deletion (10.7 %). In comparison with intron 22 inversion, the odds of ITI failure were 15.5 times higher (odds ratio [OR] 15.50; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI] 4.59-71.30) and 4.25 times higher (95 % CI, 1.53-12.3) among carriers of F8 large deletions and small insertions and deletions, respectively., Conclusion: F8 large deletions and small insertions/deletions predicted ITI failure after a first course of ITI in patients with severe hemophilia A and high-responding inhibitors. This is the first study to show F8 large deletions and small insertions/deletions as predictors of ITI failure., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest RMC received speaker fees from Bayer, NovoNordisk, Hoffman-La Roche, and Takeda, consultancy fees from Hoffman-La Roche and Takeda, and sponsorship to attend scientific event grants from Bayer, NovoNordisk, Hoffman-La Roche, and Takeda. AGO received speaker fees and scientific event grants from NovoNordisk and Takeda. MRFR received speaker fees from NovoNordisk, scientific event grants from Hoffman-La Roche, Takeda and NovoNordisk, and consultancy fees from the Brazilian Ministry of Health. FMRAC received sponsorship to attend scientific event grants from Hoffman-La Roche and NovoNordisk. LYE received scientific event grants from Hoffman-La Roche. MAFC received sponsorship to attend scientific event grants from Hoffman-La Roche and NovoNordisk. ISSP received speaker fees from Hoffman-La Roche, NovoNordisk and Takeda, sponsorship to attend scientific event grants from Hoffman-La Roche, Takeda and NovoNordisk, consultancy fees from the Hoffman-La Roche, NovoNordisk, Bayer and Biomarin, and grants for scientific publication from Takeda. AAG received speaker fees from Takeda and NovoNordisk, sponsorship to attend scientific event grants from Takeda and NovoNordisk, and consultancy fees from NovoNordisk. THA received sponsorship to attend scientific event grants from Hoffman-La Roche and Takeda. DCFN received sponsorship to attend scientific event grants from Takeda. LWZ, RPS, MMD, MAPS, LLJ, RAR, MHC, CSL, DMT, VKBF, RPT, DGC, JVDB and SMR declare they have no competing interests which might be perceived as posing as a conflict., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

One of the well-known X-linked genetic disorders is hemophilia, which could be hemophilia A as a result of a mutation in the F8 (factor VIII) gene or hemophilia B as a result of a mutation in the F9 (factor IX) gene, leading to insufficient levels of the proteins essential for blood coagulation cascade. In patients with severe hemophilia, factor VIII or factor IX activities in the blood plasma are considerably low, estimated to be less than 1%. This is responsible for spontaneous or post-traumatic bleeding episodes, or both, leading to disease complications and death. Current treatment of hemophilia relies on the prevention of bleeding, which consists of expensive lifelong replacement infusion therapy of blood plasma clotting factors, their recombinant versions, or therapy with recombinant monoclonal antibodies. Recently emerged gene therapy approaches may be a potential game changer that could reshape the therapeutic outcomes of hemophilia A or B using a one-off vector in vivo delivery and aim to achieve long-term endogenous expression of factor VIII or IX. This review examines both traditional approaches to the treatment of hemophilia and modern methods, primarily focusing on gene therapy, to update knowledge in this area. Recent technological advances and gene therapeutics in the pipeline are critically reviewed and summarized. We consider gene therapy to be the most promising method as it may overcome the problems associated with more traditional treatments, such as the need for constant and expensive infusions and the presence of an immune response to the antibody drugs used to treat hemophilia.

The development of alloantibodies (inhibitors) against coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) is the most serious complication of FVIII replacement therapy in patients with haemophilia A (HA). We carried out a nationwide study focussing on patients with HA with inhibitors in China to evaluate the condition and management of this population. The study retrospectively analysed patient characteristics, clinical history, manifestation, treatment strategy as well as individual haemophilia care of 493 patients with inhibitors (466 with severe HA and 27 with non-severe HA) registered all over China. The median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis of FVIII inhibitors was 13 (5-28) years in patients with severe HA and 24 (10·5-39·5) years in patients with non-severe HA. Most patients (85%) had high-titre inhibitors. Prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant activated coagulation factor VII were used respectively in 76·2% and 29·2% of patients for acute bleeding. Only 22·3% of patients underwent immune tolerance induction (ITI) treatment, of whom 64·9% achieved negative inhibitor titre. In patients who did not undergo ITI, the inhibitors turned negative in 17·7%, and patients with low peak inhibitor titre were more likely to acquire negative titre spontaneously (odds ratio 11·524, 95% confidence interval 5·222-25·432; P = 0·000). We recorded that 3·2% of the patients died from haemophilia-related life-threatening bleeding., (© 2021 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: KP is an inventor on FVIII patents. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Replacement therapy with coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) represents the current clinical treatment for patients affected by hemophilia A (HA). This treatment while effective is, however, hampered by the formation of antibodies which inhibit the activity of infused FVIII in up to 30% of treated patients. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) protocols, which envisage frequent infusions of high doses of FVIII to confront this side effect, dramatically increase the already high costs associated to a patient's therapy and are not always effective in all treated patients. Therefore, there are clear unmet needs that must be addressed in order to improve the outcome of these treatments for HA patients. Taking advantage of preclinical mouse models of hemophilia, several strategies have been proposed in recent years to prevent inhibitor formation and eradicate the pre-existing immunity to FVIII inhibitor positive patients. Herein, we will review some of the most promising strategies developed to avoid and eradicate inhibitors, including the use of immunomodulatory drugs or molecules, oral or transplacental delivery as well as cell and gene therapy approaches. The goal is to improve and potentiate the current ITI protocols and eventually make them obsolete., (Copyright © 2020 Merlin and Follenzi.)

Development of neutralizing antibodies against biotherapeutic agents administered to prevent or treat various clinical conditions is a longstanding and growing problem faced by patients, medical providers and pharmaceutical companies. The hemophilia A community has deep experience with attempting to manage such deleterious immune responses, as the lifesaving protein drug factor VIII (FVIII) has been in use for decades. Hemophilia A is a bleeding disorder caused by genetic mutations that result in absent or dysfunctional FVIII. Prophylactic treatment consists of regular intravenous FVIII infusions. Unfortunately, 1/4 to 1/3 of patients develop neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies, referred to clinically as "inhibitors," which result in a serious bleeding diathesis. Until recently, the only therapeutic option for these patients was "Immune Tolerance Induction," consisting of intensive FVIII administration, which is extraordinarily expensive and fails in ~30% of cases. There has been tremendous recent progress in developing novel potential clinical alternatives for the treatment of hemophilia A, ranging from encouraging results of gene therapy trials, to use of other hemostatic agents (either promoting coagulation or slowing down anti-coagulant or fibrinolytic pathways) to "bypass" the need for FVIII or supplement FVIII replacement therapy. Although these approaches are promising, there is widespread agreement that preventing or reversing inhibitors remains a high priority. Risk profiles of novel therapies are still unknown or incomplete, and FVIII will likely continue to be considered the optimal hemostatic agent to support surgery and manage trauma, or to combine with other therapies. We describe here recent exciting studies, most still pre-clinical, that address FVIII immunogenicity and suggest novel interventions to prevent or reverse inhibitor development. Studies of FVIII uptake, processing and presentation on antigen-presenting cells, epitope mapping, and the roles of complement, heme, von Willebrand factor, glycans, and the microbiome in FVIII immunogenicity are elucidating mechanisms of primary and secondary immune responses and suggesting additional novel targets. Promising tolerogenic therapies include development of FVIII-Fc fusion proteins, nanoparticle-based therapies, oral tolerance, and engineering of regulatory or cytotoxic T cells to render them FVIII-specific. Importantly, these studies are highly applicable to other scenarios where establishing immune tolerance to a defined antigen is a clinical priority., (Copyright © 2020 Lacroix-Desmazes, Voorberg, Lillicrap, Scott and Pratt.)

Background: The appearance of inhibitors is the most serious complication in haemophilia A (HA) patients. The primary objective is their eradication. Up to date, immune tolerance induction (ITI) was the only therapeutic option to achieve this., Aim: To assess the efficacy of moroctocog-alpha as an ITI regimen in a population of HA patients with high-titre inhibitors., Methods: The REF.IT Registry is a retrospective-prospective study that collected data on all patients with HA and high-titre inhibitors treated with moroctocog-alpha as an ITI regimen at twelve Italian Haemophilia Centres., Results: We enrolled 27 patients, 85.2% were children. All patients were high responders, 88.9% had severe HA. We found 69.3% of them had one or more risk factors for poor ITI prognosis, 14.8% were ITI rescue. Overall 59.3% achieved a complete/partial success (complete in 51.9%). ITI failed in 11 patients, 63.6% of them with poor-prognosis risk factors. Inhibitors appeared after a mean of 27 exposure days. Mean historical peak was 78.8 BU/mL. The primary ITIs started on average 20.2 months after the diagnosis. A partial or complete success after a mean of 15 months of treatment was achieved in 56.6% of the children while the same result was obtained by 75.0% adults after 22 months from ITI onset. Patients who were treated with high-dose moroctocog-alpha (200 UI/kg/day) were 63.0%., Conclusion: Our Registry showed that the use of moroctocog-alpha in the setting of ITI was effective and safe also in a population of patients with high-titre inhibitors, presenting one or more risk factors for poor ITI prognosis., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Inhibitor (neutralizing antibodies) development remains the most significant complication in patients with severe congenital hemophilia A receiving exogenous factor VIII (FVIII). Although our understanding of the pathophysiology of inhibitor development has advanced, the knowledge gained has not yet translated into a robust decline in incidence, with the overall risk remaining at ∼30%. Immune Tolerance Induction (ITI) is the only current method to successfully eradicate an inhibitor and achieve long-term tolerance. Although current practice utilizes a wide variety of ITI regimens, identification of an optimal regimen has not emerged. Over the last decade, the number of replacement products available in hemophilia has greatly expanded. The cumulative evidence with each product for use in ITI is often lacking. Most recently emicizumab, a humanized monoclonal bi-specific antibody that substitutes for the scaffolding effect of FVIIIa was approved; this agent prevents bleeding in both inhibitor and non-inhibitor patients. The use of emicizumab will bring about a new era in care that will require clinicians to challenge current practice paradigms including use and administration of ITI. This review will summarize the main clinical ITI data and practices for patients with severe congenital hemophilia A with inhibitors (CHAwI) over the last four decades and will highlight current studies in the field, with attention to open questions., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: As a result of the new treatment paradigm that the haemophilia community will face with the availability of novel (non-factor) therapies, an updated consensus on ITI recommendations and inhibitor management strategies is needed., Aim: The Future of Immunotolerance Treatment (FIT) group was established to contemplate, determine and recommend the best management options for patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors., Discussion and Conclusions: Despite the considerable success of emicizumab in the management of inhibitor patients, the FIT group still sees the importance of eradicating inhibitors. However, the availability of emicizumab and other non-factor therapies in the future might impact greatly on how ITI is undertaken. Theoretically, concomitant use of emicizumab and FVIII might allow emicizumab to effectively prevent bleeding with lower dose ITI regimens. This might allow for the greater adoption of low-dose/low-frequency FVIII ITI regimens, which may result in a reduced need for central venous access devices while still maintaining a reasonable likelihood of ITI success. The FIT group proposes a new management algorithm for current ITI (without emicizumab) and a hypothetical new approach with the availability of emicizumab. As there are no published data regarding the concomitant use of emicizumab and FVIII for ITI, the FIT Expert group encourages the undertaking of properly conducted prospective studies to explore these approaches further., (© 2019 The Authors. Haemophilia Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The development of inhibitors against factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates represents a significant treatment complication for hemophilia. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy eradicates inhibitors in 60-80% of patients, resulting in a normal FVIII response. This article, based on presentations at the 6th International Coagulation Meeting, held in Barcelona, Spain, in September 2017, provides an overview of management approaches for patients with inhibitors and briefly tabulates four cases of ITI therapy (first-line or rescue ITI therapy in pediatric and adult patients) with successful outcomes. Switching FVIII product from recombinant FVIII to plasma-derived FVIII/VWF concentrate may be helpful in eradicating inhibitors. The rate of decline of inhibitor titer in the initial stages of ITI therapy is a good indicator of the success or failure of therapy, although prognostic biomarkers are needed. The development of the bispecific monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which was recently shown to reduce bleeding in inhibitor patients, offers a potential alternative therapeutic option. However, the benefits of inhibitor eradication, including a wider choice of cheaper therapeutic products for preventing and treating bleeds, suggest that at least one attempt of ITI therapy should be offered to patients who develop inhibitors., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Inhibitors against factor VIII (FVIII), which develop in around 20-30% of patients with severe hemophilia A, represent a significant complication of on-demand or prophylactic FVIII therapy. Currently, the main treatment option for inhibitor patients is eradication using immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy. Areas covered: This article reviews inhibitor eradication in clinically complicated hemophilia A patients. The benefits and disadvantages of ITI therapy are discussed, with reference to the new nonfactor replacement agents such as emicizumab, which are becoming available. Expert commentary: At present, ITI therapy is the method of choice for all inhibitor patients, but as alternative treatment options become increasingly available, this may change in the future. Despite the development of nonfactor replacement agents, ITI therapy is likely to maintain a key role in the management of inhibitor patients, although changes in ITI therapy regimens including the timing of ITI initiation, the dosing regimen, the management of thrombotic risk or safety, laboratory assessment of ITI outcomes, and maintenance treatment after ITI success, may be necessary.

The development of high-titre inhibitory antibodies (inhibitors) against factor VIII (FVIII) remains a challenge in the management of patients with haemophilia A (HA). Patients with high-titre inhibitors are more likely to experience uncontrolled bleeding, physical disability from chronic arthropathy and premature death compared with those without this complication. Immune tolerance induction (ITI), utilizing repeated infusions of FVIII, is an effective therapeutic approach to eliminating inhibitory antibodies. This strategy can eradicate FVIII inhibitors, so that FVIII-specific tolerance is induced. However, patients undergoing ITI are still vulnerable to the development of serious and/or repeated bleeding events. The efficacy of bypassing agents in preventing bleeding episodes has been widely proven in patients with HA and inhibitors to FVIII. Evidence suggests that reducing bleeding during ITI can also shorten the time to tolerance. There are concerns with the use of bypassing agents, including the cost of treatment, short half-life, management of non-responders and the risk of thrombosis. Despite these concerns, and the still limited evidence from prospective studies and consensus reports, the use of prophylaxis with bypassing agents during ITI has been gaining support. This review presents a rationale and current data supporting the use of prophylactic bypassing agents as effective and safe therapies to reduce the incidence of joint bleeding due to inhibitors and improve quality of life in patients with HA undergoing ITI., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the gold standard for eradication of factor VIII inhibitors in severe haemophilia A; however, it usually requires treatment for extended periods with associated high burden on patients and healthcare resources., Aim: Review outcomes of ITI with recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) in patients with severe haemophilia A and high-titre inhibitors., Methods: Multicentre retrospective chart review of severe haemophilia A patients treated with rFVIIIFc for ITI., Results: Of 19 patients, 7 were first-time ITI and 12 were rescue ITI. Of 7 first-time patients, 6 had at least 1 high-risk feature for ITI failure. Four of 7 first-time patients were tolerized in a median of 7.8 months. The remaining 3 patients continue on rFVIIIFc ITI. Of 12 rescue patients, 7 initially achieved a negative Bethesda titre (≤0.6) in a median of 3.3 months, 1 had a decrease in Bethesda titre and continues on rFVIIIFc ITI and 4 have not demonstrated a decrease in Bethesda titre. Of these 4, 3 continue on rFVIIIFc ITI and 1 switched to bypass therapy alone. Two initially responsive patients transitioned to other factors due to recurrence. Overall, 16 of 19 patients remain on rFVIIIFc (prophylaxis or ITI). For those still undergoing ITI, longer follow-up is needed to determine final outcomes. No adverse events reported., Conclusions: Recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein demonstrated rapid time to tolerization in high-risk first-time ITI patients. For rescue ITI, rFVIIIFc showed therapeutic benefit in some patients who previously failed ITI with other products. These findings highlight the need to further evaluate the use of rFVIIIFc for ITI., (© 2018 The Authors. Haemophilia Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Essentials The immune response is a significant concern in gene therapy. Platelet-targeted gene therapy can restore hemostasis and induce immune tolerance. CD4 T cell compartment is tolerized after platelet gene therapy. Preconditioning regimen affects immune tolerance induction in platelet gene therapy., Summary: Background Immune responses are a major concern in gene therapy. Our previous studies demonstrated that platelet-targeted factor VIII (FVIII) (2bF8) gene therapy together with in vivo drug selection of transduced cells can rescue the bleeding diathesis and induce immune tolerance in FVIII null mice. Objective To investigate whether non-selectable 2bF8 lentiviral vector (LV) for the induction of platelet-FVIII expression is sufficient to induce immune tolerance and how immune tolerance is induced after 2bF8LV gene therapy. Methods Platelet-FVIII expression was introduced by 2bF8LV transduction and transplantation. FVIII assays and tail bleeding tests were used to confirm the success of platelet gene therapy. Animals were challenged with rhF8 to explore if immune tolerance was induced after gene therapy. Treg cell analysis, T-cell proliferation assay and memory B-cell-mediated ELISPOT assay were used to investigate the potential mechanisms of immune tolerance. Results We showed that platelet-FVIII expression was sustained and the bleeding diathesis was restored in FVIII null mice after 2bF8LV gene therapy. None of the transduced recipients developed anti-FVIII inhibitory antibodies in the groups preconditioned with 660 cGy irradiation or busulfan plus ATG treatment even after rhF8 challenge. Treg cells significantly increased in 2bF8LV-transduced recipients and the immune tolerance developed was transferable. CD4 + T cells from treated animals failed to proliferate in response to rhF8 re-stimulation, but memory B cells could differentiate into antibody secreting cells in 2bF8LV-transduced recipients. Conclusion 2bF8LV gene transfer without in vivo selection of manipulated cells can introduce immune tolerance in hemophilia A mice and this immune tolerance is CD4 + T cell mediated., (© 2017 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

The development of inhibitors toward factor VIII (FVIII) is a common and serious complication of hemophilia A (HA) therapy. Patients with hemophilia who develop inhibitors often undergo time- and resource-intensive immune tolerance induction (ITI) protocols. We report a 15-month-old male with severe HA and a high-titer inhibitor that occurred while receiving prophylactic treatment with recombinant FVIII (rFVIII), in whom significant inhibitor titer reduction was achieved with thrice weekly infusions of a new, prolonged half-life rFVIII-Fc fusion protein product (trade name Eloctate). Further studies are warranted to explore the potential of Eloctate in ITI protocols., (Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Several lines of evidence indicate that the immune response to Factor VIII (FVIII) in patients with hemophilia A is T cell-dependent. This review highlights the link between the epitope specificity of FVIII-specific T cells and their potential roles in different categories of patients. FVIII-specific T cells able to recognize wild-type (i.e. therapeutic) FVIII but not the mutated self FVIII of hemophilia patients have been identified in patients with mild/moderate hemophilia carrying some point mutations. Such T cells likely contribute to the higher frequency of neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies (inhibitors) development in these patients. In contrast, as yet no T cells have been identified that can differentiate between FVIII molecules with non-hemophilia-causing single amino acid variants encoded by non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the F8 gene. Other mechanisms are therefore still to be identified that will explain the clinically noted differences in the incidence of inhibitor development between patients of different races who are known to have differences at these sites. Beside information about the mechanism of inhibitor development, the analysis of FVIII-specific T cells has provided tools to develop novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, such as the generation of FVIII-specific regulatory T cells that may be useful in preventing or suppressing the immune response to FVIII., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction/background: Development of neutralizing inhibitors against factor VIII (FVIII) is a major complication of haemophilia A treatment., Aim: The ongoing, international, open-label, uncontrolled, observational immune tolerance induction (ObsITI) study evaluates ITI, the standard of care in patients with inhibitors., Patients/methods: Forty-eight prospective patients in this interim analysis received a single plasma-derived, von Willebrand factor-stabilized, FVIII concentrate (pdFVIII/VWF) for ITI. According to recommended Bonn protocol, 'low responders' at ITI start (<5 BU) received 50-100 IU FVIII kg(-1) daily, or every other day; 'high responders' (≥5 BU) received 100 IU FVIII kg(-1) every 12 h., Results: Forty of 48 patients (83.3%), had at least one risk factor for poor ITI-prognosis at ITI start (i.e. age ≥7 years, >2 years since inhibitor diagnosis, inhibitor titre ≥10 BU at the start of ITI, or prior ITI failure). Nonetheless, 34 patients (70.8%) achieved complete success, 3 (6.3%) partial success, 1 (2.1%) partial response; ITI failed in 10 patients (20.8%), all with poor prognosis factors. All six low responders achieved complete success. ITI outcome was significantly associated with inhibitor titre level at ITI start (P = 0.0068), number of poor prognosis factors for ITI success (P = 0.0187), monthly bleeding rate during ITI (P = 0.0005) and peak inhibitor titre during ITI (P = 0.0007). Twenty-two of 35 high responder patients (62.9%) with ≥1 poor prognosis factor achieved complete success., Conclusion: Treatment with a single pdFVIII/VWF concentrate, mainly according to the Bonn protocol, resulted in a high ITI success rate in haemophilia A patients with inhibitors and poor prognosis for ITI success., (© 2015 The Authors. Haemophilia Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: The development of anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies (inhibitors) is the most serious treatment-related complication in patients with hemophilia A, rendering standard replacement therapy ineffective, heightening the risk for uncontrollable bleeding and morbidity, decreasing quality of life, and increasing healthcare costs., Aim: Formulate evidence-based guidelines for optimizing immune tolerance induction (ITI) in patients with hemophilia A and inhibitors., Methods: Results from the International ITI study and other available evidence were used to develop guidelines for ITI., Results: Predictors of ITI success were identified and recommendations made for ITI with regard to candidates, timing, product, regimen, monitoring, defining success, concurrent immunomodulation, duration of treatment, and bleed management before and during ITI., Conclusion: Evidence-based recommendations to guide treatment decisions may increase the likelihood of successful inhibitor eradication and the induction of FVIII tolerance in patients with hemophilia A who develop inhibitory antibodies., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In nonsevere haemophilia A (HA) patients the presence of an inhibitor may exacerbate the bleeding phenotype dramatically. There are very limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach to eradicate inhibitors in these patients. We aimed to describe inhibitor eradication treatment in a large cohort of unselected nonsevere HA patients with inhibitors. We included 101 inhibitor patients from a source population of 2,709 nonsevere HA patients (factor VIII 2-40 IU/dl), treated in Europe and Australia (median age 37 years, interquartile range (IQR) 15-60; median peak titre 7 BU/ml, IQR 2-30). In the majority of the patients (71 %; 72/101) the inhibitor disappeared; either spontaneously (70 %, 51/73) or after eradication treatment (75 %, 21/28). Eradication treatment strategies varied widely, including both immune tolerance induction and immunosuppression. Sustained success (no inhibitor after rechallenge with factor VIII concentrate after inhibitor disappearance) was achieved in 64 % (30/47) of those patients rechallenged with FVIII concentrate. In high-titre inhibitor patients sustained success was associated with eradication treatment (unadjusted relative risk 2.3, 95 % confidence interval 1.3-4.3), compared to no eradication treatment. In conclusion, in nonsevere HA patients most inhibitors disappear spontaneously. However, in 35 % (25/72) of these patients an anamnestic response still can occur when rechallenged, thus disappearance in these patients does not always equal sustained response. Treatment for those requiring eradication has to be decided case by case, as one single approach is unlikely to be appropriate for all.

Current guidelines recommend delaying the start of immune tolerance induction (ITI) until the inhibitor titre is <10 Bethesda units (BU) to improve success. This study was conducted to evaluate ITI outcome relative to time to start ITI from inhibitor detection irrespective of inhibitor titre. Data were retrospectively collected from two U.S. haemophilia treatment centres (HTCs) on subjects with severe/moderate factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency with inhibitors who underwent ITI. Outcomes were defined pragmatically: success--negative inhibitor titre and ability to use FVIII concentrate for treatment/bleed prevention; partial success--inhibitor titre 1 to <5 BU with ability to use FVIII concentrate for treatment of bleeding; failure--ITI ongoing >3 years without achieving success/partial success, or ITI discontinuation. Fifty-eight subjects were included; 32 of 39 (82%) with high-responding inhibitor (HRI) achieved success, 7 failed. HRI subjects were subdivided based on ITI start time: 23/39 subjects started within 1 month of detection and 22/23 (96%) achieved success. Of these 23, 13 started ITI with an inhibitor titre ≥10 BU; all were successes. Eleven of 39 HRI subjects had an interval >6 months until ITI start; 7 (64%) achieved success. Time from inhibitor detection to ITI start may play a critical role in outcome. A titre ≥10 BU at ITI start did not influence outcome in subjects when ITI was initiated within 1 month of detection. Prompt ITI should be considered a viable therapeutic option in newly identified patients with inhibitors regardless of current inhibitor titre., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors present major clinical challenge as a complication of hemophilia A in patients on treatment with FVIII concentrates and as acquired autoantibodies in patients without hemophilia A. We aimed to study the prevalence of FVIII inhibitors in Indian settings, risk factors involved in early development of inhibitors in patients with hemophilia, differences in their clinical behavior, and approach to treatment, in comparison to patients with acquired hemophilia. The overall prevalence of FVIII inhibitors in patients with severe hemophilia A was found to be 22.3%. Two cases of acquired hemophilia were reported. Due to heterogeneity of our study population, cases have been discussed individually. We observed that the early development of FVIII inhibitors in patients with hemophilia A is dependent upon an interplay of several risk factors that need to be studied in a multivariable analysis to bring out significant correlation with response to treatment. Also, they differ from patients without hemophilia A entirely in terms of presentation and management., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Introduction: It has been postulated that factor VIII (FVIII) products containing von Willebrand factor (VWF) may improve immune tolerance induction (ITI) success rate in patients with haemophilia A and poor prognostic factors., Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of a FVIII/VWF concentrate (BIOSTATE) for ITI in paediatric patients with severe haemophilia A (SHA) and inhibitors, from January 2003 to December 2011 at 3 paediatric-only Haemophilia Treatment Centres in Australia. Response to ITI was assessed at or before 33 months and at completion of ITI. Fifteen male patients with SHA were included in the analysis., Results: BIOSTATE was used for primary ITI in 8 patients (2 years, range 1.1-11.5 years) and for salvage ITI in 7 patients (9.9 years, range 1.1-15.4). At the end of the observation period there were 11 patients who achieved a complete response with BIOSTATE after a median duration of 21 months (range 5-85 months); a partial response was achieved in 2 patients in whom ITI is ongoing. Therefore, the overall response rate was 86.6%. Two patients were deemed treatment failures: one due to non-compliance after 18 months of ITI and another in whom a partial response had not been achieved after 22 months of ITI., Conclusion: BIOSTATE was well-tolerated and effective when used for primary or salvage ITI in this cohort of paediatric patients with SHA and a high-level inhibitor., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) has been shown to successfully eliminate factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors in haemophilia patients with inhibitors. We performed a literature search to identify reports from January 1980 to October 2012 on the use of the plasma-derived, von Willebrand factor (VWF)-containing FVIII concentrate Haemate P/Humate-P in the setting of ITI. Six reports were identified that specifically evaluated the use of Haemate P/Humate-P including 32 children and 9 adults. Dosing regimens ranged from 20 IU kg(-1) every 2-3 days in patients with low-responding (LR; n = 5) inhibitors to 300 IU kg(-1) day(-1) in patients with high-responding (HR; n = 36) inhibitors. Complete success was achieved in all five LR patients, in all three HR patients with good prognostic factors (age ≤7 years, pre-ITI inhibitor titre <10 BU, historical inhibitor titre <200 BU, time between inhibitor detection and ITI start <2 years), and in 24 of 33 (73%) HR patients with poor prognostic factors. The time to complete success was 0.5-4 months in good-prognosis patients and 0.5-42 months in poor-prognosis patients. Few adverse events were observed during ITI, and no cases of inhibitor relapse were reported with follow-up periods of up to 12 years. On the basis of this retrospective review of a diverse range of studies and case reports, we conclude that Haemate P/Humate-P for ITI in patients with inhibitors is effective and produces high rates of ITI success., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

• Immunogenicity is a recurring concern across all therapies for Hemophilia A. It impacts the safety and efficacy of new and old recombinant Factor VIII products, the long-acting FVIII versions, as well as other clinical options such as bypassing agents and gene-based therapies. • The risk of anti-drug antibody development for any given Hemophilia A patient remains under investigation but a multitude of factors, related to the patient's genetic mutations, health status, and treatment or product history, have been recognized. • Gene replacement and gene editing therapies for Hemophilia A represent new treatment options for generating long-term production of factor VIII in patients, but pre-existing and de novo immunity against the vector capsids and transgene products pose significant impediments in their development. The introduction and development of biologics such as therapeutic proteins, gene-, and cell-based therapy have revolutionized the scope of treatment for many diseases. However, a significant portion of the patients develop unwanted immune reactions against these novel biological modalities, referred to as immunogenicity, and no longer benefit from the treatments. In the current review, using Hemophilia A (HA) therapy as an example, we will discuss the immunogenicity issue of multiple biological modalities. Currently, the number of therapeutic modalities that are approved or recently explored to treat HA, a hereditary bleeding disorder, is increasing rapidly. These include, but are not limited to, recombinant factor VIII proteins, PEGylated FVIII, FVIII Fc fusion protein, bispecific monoclonal antibodies, gene replacement therapy, gene editing therapy, and cell-based therapy. They offer the patients a broader range of more advanced and effective treatment options, yet immunogenicity remains the most critical complication in the management of this disorder. Recent advances in strategies to manage and mitigate immunogenicity will also be reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Haemophilia A is a bleeding disorder caused by deficiency of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) which leads to severe and repeated bleedings. There is a need to understand the optimal treatment pathway for FVIII inhibitors with the use of immune tolerance induction (ITI) and the role of haemostatic ‘bypassing’ agents (BPA) on-demand (OD) or prophylactically (Px). The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the real-world use of BPA therapy administered prophylactically or on-demand concomitant with ITI, for the treatment of an inhibitor to FVIII replacement therapy in patients with severe haemophilia A. Methods Retrospective observational data were used to capture disease management information for patients who were aged 16 or under and had received ITI and BPA treatment for their most recent inhibitor from Jan-2015 to Jan-2019, for 47 patients in the UK and Germany. Descriptive comparisons of the clinical effectiveness and resource utilisation of Px and OD BPA therapy during ITI were conducted. Results During ITI and BPA treatment, for an inhibitor, bleeding events averaged 1.5 and 1.2 for Px and OD treatment respectively. Compared to only BPA therapy we see 3.4 and 1.4 bleeding events for Px and OD respectively during an inhibitor. Conclusion Baseline disease characteristics differed between BPA therapy cohorts and this resulted in higher clinical effectiveness of ITI treatment alongside BPA Px than BPA OD during an inhibitor.

Background: Haemophilia A is a bleeding disorder caused by deficiency of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) which leads to severe and repeated bleedings. There is a need to understand the optimal treatment pathway for FVIII inhibitors with the use of immune tolerance induction (ITI) and the role of haemostatic 'bypassing' agents (BPA) on-demand (OD) or prophylactically (Px). The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the real-world use of BPA therapy administered prophylactically or on-demand concomitant with ITI, for the treatment of an inhibitor to FVIII replacement therapy in patients with severe haemophilia A. Methods: Retrospective observational data were used to capture disease management information for patients who were aged 16 or under and had received ITI and BPA treatment for their most recent inhibitor from Jan-2015 to Jan-2019, for 47 patients in the UK and Germany. Descriptive comparisons of the clinical effectiveness and resource utilisation of Px and OD BPA therapy during ITI were conducted. Results: During ITI and BPA treatment, for an inhibitor, bleeding events averaged 1.5 and 1.2 for Px and OD treatment respectively. Compared to only BPA therapy we see 3.4 and 1.4 bleeding events for Px and OD respectively during an inhibitor. Conclusion: Baseline disease characteristics differed between BPA therapy cohorts and this resulted in higher clinical effectiveness of ITI treatment alongside BPA Px than BPA OD during an inhibitor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The development of inhibitory antibodies is a severe complication of clotting factor replacement therapy in patients with severe haemophilia A (HA). Current World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines for haemophilia care indicate that eradication of inhibitors is best achieved through immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy. Aim: The European Collaborative Haemophilia Network conducted a survey to determine whether ITI is still used in the routine management of patients with HA, and whether the availability of emicizumab prophylaxis has influenced treatment decisions. Methods: The survey was conducted in late 2020/early 2021 in 18 centres representing 17 countries in the Europe/Middle East region treating a total of 4955 patients, and included sections specific to patient and centre demographics, treatment protocols (both ITI and prophylactic), inhibitor development and initiation of ITI, treatment success, and the incidence of adverse events. Results: While our results indicate that ITI can still be considered a mainstay of treatment for patients with HA with inhibitors, less than daily dosing of ITI in combination with emicizumab prophylaxis is becoming commonplace across the spectrum of disease severity, with initiation being guided by bleeding patterns. The most frequently cited reasons for not initiating emicizumab prophylaxis were availability or reimbursement issues. Conclusion: ITI remains a mainstay for haemophilia treatment of patients with HA with inhibitors, but emicizumab has become a preferred first‐line approach to protect against bleeds and represents an alternative to burdensome ITI in certain patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standard treatment of haemophilia A is based on replacing the missing coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) to treat and prevent bleeding episodes. The most challenging complication of FVIII therapy is the development of neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) that can render treatment ineffective. Eradication of the inhibitor through immune tolerance induction (ITI) remains the most effective strategy for managing these patients. Bypassing agents can be used to help restore haemostasis in inhibitor patients. Several novel agents have recently been developed, such as the FVIII mimetic agent emicizumab, which has been effective in reducing the annualized bleeding rate in haemophilia A patients with inhibitors. When coadministered with repetitive high doses of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (ie >100 U/kg/d for ≥24 hours), emicizumab was associated with thrombotic microangiopathy and thrombosis events. As a consequence the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation (UKHCDO) issued the first guidance on the treatment of bleeding episodes in patients receiving emicizumab. To build on and extend this work, a panel of German haemophilia specialists met to discuss the UK guidance, review current evidence and provide additional guidance for German healthcare professionals on how to optimize the management of patients with haemophilia A receiving emicizumab. Recommendations are provided on the use of bypassing and other agents to manage breakthrough bleeding, ITI in the emicizumab era, haemostatic support during surgery and issues relating to laboratory monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emicizumab is a bispecific antibody that recognizes FIX(a)/FX, and mimics FVIIIa cofactor activity. Due to its unique characteristics including longer half‐life and subcutaneous injectability, treatment for haemophilia A dramatically improved regardless of the presence of FVIII inhibitor. Protection from pathological change in joints, avoidance of inhibitor development and intra‐cranial haemorrhage could be expected by introduction of emicizumab in early childhood. Applications in mild/moderate patients should be also considered. Clinical assessment tool should be standardized; however, since there are limitations to conventional ABR‐based assessment. Laboratory monitoring is another practical issue due to the mode of action of emicizumab. Chromogenic assays and global assays could be utilized. The other emicizumab‐related practical issue is immune tolerance induction for the inhibitor patients, since ITI remains the only effective means to inhibitor eradication. With the recently introduced Atlanta protocol, emicizumab prophylaxis is given in combination with 50‐100 IU/kg FVIII three times a week. A single manuscript has been published, and multiple clinical trials are open to address the efficacy of this strategy. Whether the Atlanta protocol will be fully embraced is yet to be seen, but there is widespread consensus about attempts to tolerize every haemophilia A patient with an inhibitor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Development of inhibitors to coagulation factor VIII or IX is still the most challenging complication in haemophilia care. ‘Bypassing agents’ may be used to treat a bleed but the eradication of the inhibitor by immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the main objective in the treatment of a patient with haemophilia who has developed neutralizing antibodies. Several options exist for ITI and the patient may be at ‘good’ or ‘bad risk’ for successful outcome with different regimens. This paper offers a review of current regimens to be considered in the treatment of a bleed in a patient with an inhibitor but the main focus is the aspects of different choices in the management of the child or the adult with severe or mild forms of haemophilia A or B, who has developed an inhibitor. There are also some final outlooks on new and emerging treatment possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) has been shown to successfully eliminate factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors in haemophilia patients with inhibitors. We performed a literature search to identify reports from January 1980 to October 2012 on the use of the plasma-derived, von Willebrand factor (VWF)-containing FVIII concentrate Haemate® P/Humate-P® in the setting of ITI. Six reports were identified that specifically evaluated the use of Haemate® P/Humate-P® including 32 children and 9 adults. Dosing regimens ranged from 20 IU kg−1 every 2-3 days in patients with low-responding (LR; n = 5) inhibitors to 300 IU kg−1 day−1 in patients with high-responding (HR; n = 36) inhibitors. Complete success was achieved in all five LR patients, in all three HR patients with good prognostic factors (age ≤7 years, pre-ITI inhibitor titre <10 BU, historical inhibitor titre <200 BU, time between inhibitor detection and ITI start <2 years), and in 24 of 33 (73%) HR patients with poor prognostic factors. The time to complete success was 0.5-4 months in good-prognosis patients and 0.5-42 months in poor-prognosis patients. Few adverse events were observed during ITI, and no cases of inhibitor relapse were reported with follow-up periods of up to 12 years. On the basis of this retrospective review of a diverse range of studies and case reports, we conclude that Haemate® P/Humate-P® for ITI in patients with inhibitors is effective and produces high rates of ITI success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune tolerance induction ( ITI) can eliminate factor VIII ( FVIII) inhibitory antibodies that appear during FVIII replacement therapy. If first-line ITI fails, switching to a different FVIII concentrate, especially one containing von Willebrand factor ( VWF), has been advocated. The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Haemate® P, a plasma-derived FVIII concentrate containing high levels of VWF, as ITI in severe haemophilia A patients who had failed at least one prior ITI attempt with a different FVIII concentrate. In this multicentre, observational study, Haemate® P was administered at a starting dose of 83-308 IU kg−1 day−1 (1500-6000 IU day−1). Efficacy was assessed by standard criteria (e.g. Bethesda titre, FVIII recovery and half-life), and bleeding characteristics. Nine patients from six haemophilia centres were treated with Haemate® P after failing one ( n = 2), two ( n = 5) or three ( n = 2) prior ITI courses. The median time from inhibitor detection to Haemate® P treatment was 5.4 years. The median Haemate® P dose was 134 IU kg−1, and the median treatment duration 32 months. During median of 47 months of follow-up, complete response, partial response and treatment failure were observed in one, three and five patients respectively. Five patients experienced seven adverse events (AEs), including two serious AEs (sepsis). Haemate® P was discontinued due to an AE in one patient with a partial response. Haemate® P salvage ITI resulted in complete or partial tolerization in four of nine patients (44%) who had failed previous ITI attempts using different FVIII concentrates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune tolerance induction ( ITI) is recognized as the first choice treatment in haemophilic patients with inhibitors, with the aim of restoring safe and effective standard factor VIII replacement and, particularly, prophylaxis in children. For the latter, literature data and clinical practice support the optimal cost utility ratio of ITI. Indeed, the high success rate, the low incidence of inhibitor recurrence after successful ITI and the possibility of preventing joint deterioration, enable one to predict a considerable long-term reduction of costs in the majority of treated patients. Therefore, in spite of high costs and open issues about optimal regimens, ITI is actually attempted in virtually all children with inhibitors. Few patients with long-standing inhibitors presently undergo ITI, particularly in the case of severe bleeding tendency. In this setting, uncertainties concerning management are amplified by the paucity of literature data and psychological reluctance by both patients and treaters due to the perceived poor prognosis and the demanding treatment (also in terms of costs). However, clinical data suggest that the role of age at ITI start and of time interval from inhibitor diagnosis, as predictors of ITI outcome, should be considered in a larger framework of proposed and more established prognostic factors. Moreover, optimising ITI management, particularly with respect to inhibitor titre at ITI start and avoidance of adverse events or interruption of treatment, may also contribute to improve outcomes. Although the economic constraints of the present era significantly affect resources for such a high-cost treatment, the individual cost-utility ratio (bleeding tendency and risk of fatal bleeding, arthropathy and need for orthopaedic surgery, comorbidities, quality of life) should be assessed carefully to determine whether ITI is a suitable option and thus not preclude adults from the opportunity of inhibitor eradication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among the proposed predictors for immune tolerance induction ( ITI) outcome, the therapeutic regimen - specifically the dose and frequency of administered factor VIII (FVIII) as well as FVIII product type - is intensely debated. Are there any advantages for low-dose regimens (50 IU FVIII kg−1 three times a week) over high-dose regimens (200 IU FVIII kg day−1) or vice versa? Are von Willebrand factor ( VWF)-containing plasma-derived concentrates superior to recombinant FVIII concentrates for tolerance induction? A review of the available literature indicates that patients with good prognostic factors can achieve success with either low-dose or high-dose ITI regimens. Retrospective data suggest that patient characteristics such as maximum historical inhibitor titres and pre- ITI inhibitor titres are better predictors of treatment success than dose. Results of the prospective International ITI Study have recently become available. In inhibitor patients with good prognosis, success rates were similar between low-dose (50 IU FVIII kg−1 three times a week) and high-dose (200 IU FVIII kg−1 daily) regimens. However, patients receiving low-dose ITI took longer to achieve various ITI milestones and had a significantly higher bleed rate per month compared with the high-dose group (0.62 vs. 0.28; P = 0.00024), findings with important clinical implications. Inhibitor patients with poor prognostic features should be treated with a high-dose protocol. This conclusion is supported by a meta-analysis of the International Immune Tolerance Registry and North American Immune Tolerance Registry and by data from Germany showing good success rates with the high-dose, high-frequency Bonn protocol in poor prognosis patients. Type of concentrate also appears to have an influence on ITI success rates in this patient subgroup, with evidence suggesting an advantage for VWF-containing plasma-derived FVIII concentrates over recombinant or VWF-free concentrates. The ongoing prospective studies REScue Immunotolerance STudy and Observational Immune Tolerance Induction are evaluating ITI outcome with respect to product type and are expected to answer this important clinical question as well as provide greater insight into patient- and therapy-related variables in inhibitor patients with poor prognostic features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antibodies directed towards non-neutralizing epitopes on the factor VIII protein ( FVIII) may be detected in patients with haemophilia A. We evaluated the prevalence of non-neutralizing antibodies, in 201 inhibitor-negative brother pairs with severe haemophilia A, enrolled in the Malmö International Brother Study and the Haemophilia Inhibitor Genetics Study. To evaluate binding specificity of the antibodies, ELISA plates were coated with two recombinant full-length ( FL) FVIII-products and one recombinant B-domain-deleted ( BDD) product. Seventy-nine patients (39.3%) had a history of positive inhibitor titre measured by Bethesda assay, and FVIII antibodies were detected in 20 of them (25.3%). Additional 23 samples from subjects without a history of FVIII inhibitors were ELISA-positive corresponding to a frequency of non-neutralizing antibodies of 18.9%. The antibody response towards the different FVIII products was heterogenous, and was raised not only towards the non-functional B-domain but also towards both FL-rFVIII and BDD-rFVIII. In patients considered successfully treated with immune tolerance induction, 25.4% had remaining FVIII antibodies. The number of families with an antibody response in all siblings was increased when the total antibody response was taken into account, further supporting the concept of a genetic predisposition of the immune response. Further studies and careful monitoring over time are required to appreciate the immune response on the risk of inhibitor development or recurrence in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

. Inhibitor development remains a challenge to appropriate haemophilia treatment. This challenge is being addressed, in part, by an expanding knowledge of the mechanisms that drive inhibitor development including how elements of the innate immune response play a role in inhibitor development. There are promising therapies that may suppress an active immune response. Models to assess the immune responses are becoming ever more sophisticated. Newer models can be used at the preclinical level to evaluate the role of MHC-class II presentation of antigens in both in vitro cell culture studies and in vivo in transgenic mice that express either the protein to be studied or that express human MHC-class II proteins. Parallel to work designed to reduce or reverse inhibitors is development of improved therapies including bypassing agents to treat patients with inhibitors. With these new treatment modalities comes the problem of assessing efficacy at the preclinical level. Models to evaluate bleeding are being developed that may give a more subtle assessment of bypassing agents. These models represent in part an attempt to incorporate the role of ongoing bleeding into the evaluation. Overall, these newer models have great potential in preclinical studies to evaluate the risk of inhibitor development of new therapeutics and to assess the functionality of these new therapeutics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]