Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, treatment based on the availability of clotting factor replacement has resulted in an arcane guideline for the correction of factor deficiencies in people with haemophilia (PwH). While all other disease entities seek to restore function to a normal level, PwH are restricted to factor nadirs still equivalent to mild or moderate disease, resulting in continued risk of bleeding. A new treatment paradigm is needed based on the defined needs of PwH. A treatment model was developed by a panel of haemophilia providers, patient advocates and health economists to establish specific treatment milestones and targeted outcomes. The panel defined a series of treatment milestones to characterize the activity and outcomes linked to level of factor deficiency correction. All agreed that the ultimate goal should be 'functional cure' and 'health equity'. Seven levels to achieving a functional cure were identified, (a) Sustain life; (b) Minimal joint impairment; (c) Freedom from any spontaneous bleeds; (d) Attainment of 'normal' mobility; (e) Able to sustain minor trauma without additional intervention; (f) Ability to sustain major surgery or trauma; and (g) Normal haemostasis. A parallel set of patient‐reported outcomes to achieve health equity was identified. These guidelines are now comparable with other disorders where the goal is to replace missing proteins to attain normal activity levels. As we are no longer limited by plasma supply due to the manufacture of recombinant factors, mimetics, and the early success of gene therapy, health equity is now achievable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: Therapeutic advances over the past 30 years have led to longer life expectancy and improved quality of life (QOL) for persons with hemophilia. Access to innovative therapy may be compromised if treatment decisions are driven solely by cost. New strategies are needed to assess true therapeutic values, along with financial cost, as physicians, policymakers, payers and manufacturers work together to improve patient care. Aim: To provide an evidence‐based assessment of the value of prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy for hemophilia, based on a widely recognized three‐tiered value framework approach for assessing a range of therapeutic interventions. Methods: Data from six randomized clinical trials (ESPRIT, Joint Outcomes Study, SPINART, LEOPOLD II, ADVATE and POTTER) and four observational studies comparing primary and secondary prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy were applied to a hemophilia value framework. Results: Both primary and secondary prophylaxis showed advantages in Tier 1 “Degree of health/recovery” outcomes, including measures of bleeding, musculoskeletal complications, pain, function/activity and QOL. Tier 2 “Process of Recovery” outcomes, also favoured prophylaxis, including measures of recovery time, return to normal activities, orthopaedic intervention and venous access. In Tier 3 “Sustainability of Health Recovery,” measures of breakthrough bleeds, joint preservation, sustained productivity and QOL showed significant improvement with prophylaxis. Conclusion: The hemophilia value framework affirmed value of primary and secondary prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy, with clinical benefit demonstrated in all three tiers. This analysis also demonstrates clinical utility of the value framework process in the determination of optimal and cost‐effective hemophilia care for all stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 5th Haemophilia Global Summit was held in Barcelona, Spain, in September 2014. The programme was designed by an independent Scientific Steering Committee of haemophilia experts and explored issues relevant to the practical management of haemophilia, as well as key opportunities and challenges for care in the future. The topics outlined in this supplement were selected by the Scientific Steering Committee for their relevance to improving haemophilia care globally. In this supplement from the meeting, Gerry Dolan explores pharmacokinetics and dynamics in haemophilia, and Gerry Dolan and Ian Jennings jointly address the role of the laboratory in haemophilia care. The potential benefits of low-dose prophylaxis regimens for people with haemophilia in the developing world are reviewed by Jerzy Windyga, and the question of whether 'Future haemophilia research should be undertaken in the developing world' is debated by Jerzy Windyga and Cedric Hermans. Management strategies for ankle arthropathy are discussed by Sébastien Lobet and E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán, and the use of ultrasound for the early detection of haemophilic arthropathy is addressed by Matteo Nicola Dario Di Minno and Víctor Jiménez-Yuste. Finally, the role of patients in the future of haemophilia care is reviewed by Brian O'Mahony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]