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.

OBJECTIVE: To establish clear priorities for the care of patients with acquired hemophilia A (AHA) by proposing 10 key principles of practical, holistic AHA management. METHOD: These principles were developed by the Zürich Haemophilia Forum, an expert panel of European hemophilia specialists comprising physicians and nursing and laboratory specialists. RESULTS: The 10 proposed principles for AHA care are as follows: (a) Improving initial diagnosis of AHA; (b) Differential diagnosis of AHA: laboratory assessment of patients with unusual bleeding; (c) Effective communication between laboratories, physicians, and specialists; (d) Improving clinical care: networking between healthcare professionals in the treating hospital and specialist hemophilia centers; (e) Comprehensive assessment of bleeding; (f) Appropriate use of bypassing agents; (g) Long-term follow-up and monitoring for efficacy and safety of immunosuppressive treatment; (h) Inpatient/outpatient settings; (i) Access to innovative and disruptive treatments; (j) Promotion of international collaborative research. CONCLUSION: The proposed principles for holistic AHA care aim to ensure swift diagnosis and optimal patient management. Key to achieving this goal is training for healthcare personnel in non-specialist hospitals and collaboration between different specialists. We hope these principles will increase awareness of AHA in the wider medical community and catalyze efforts toward improving its practical, multidisciplinary management.

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.

Prophylactic therapy with exogenous clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia A and B aims to achieve levels of circulating FVIII or FIX that are adequate for the prevention or reduction of spontaneous joint bleeding. Historically, a minimum trough level of at least 1% of the normal levels of circulating clotting factor has been targeted using standardised protocols. However, clearance of clotting factor varies between products and patients, and other pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters such as the frequency and magnitude of peaks may be important for ensuring optimal coverage. Thus, it is increasingly recognised that an individualised, PK-based approach to prophylaxis is necessary to achieve optimal protection. This review focuses on the clinical implications of using PK-guided, individualised prophylaxis in haemophilia to improve patient outcomes and considers practical methods of establishing patients' PK parameters. The most useful PK parameters will depend on the aim of the specific treatment (e.g. preventing activity-related and traumatic bleeds or addressing subclinical bleeding). In clinical practice, lengthy and frequent post-infusion sampling for PK analysis is costly and a significant burden for patients. However, a Bayesian analysis allows for the estimation of different PK parameters (e.g. half-life, factor concentrations over time, etc.) with only a minimum number of samples (e.g. 4, 24 and 48 h for haemophilia A), by using the patient's data to adjust a relevant population PK value towards the actual value. Numerous tools are available to aid in the practical use of Bayesian PK-guided dosing in the clinic, including the Web-based Application for the Population Pharmacokinetic Service hosted by McMaster University, Canada. The PK data can be used to determine the appropriate prophylaxis regimen for the individual patient, which can be monitored by assessment of the trough level at each clinic visit. Collection of PK data and subsequent PK-guided dosing s

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.

Mild haemophilia is defined by factor levels between 0.05 and 0.40 IU/mL and is characterised by traumatic bleeds. Major issues associated with mild haemophilia are that it may not present for many years after birth, and that awareness, even within families, may be low. Methodological problems exist in diagnosis, such as inconsistencies in results obtained from different assays used to measure factor levels in mild haemophilia. Advances in genetic testing provide insight into diagnosis as well as the likelihood of inhibitor development, which is not uncommon in patients with mild or moderate haemophilia and can increase morbidity. The management of patients with mild haemophilia is a challenge. This review includes suggestions around formulating treatment plans for these patients, encompassing the full spectrum from clinical care of the newly diagnosed neonate to that of the ageing patient with multiple comorbidities. Management strategies consider not only the vast differences in these patients' needs, but also risks of inhibitor development and approaches to optimally engage patients.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic replacement with factor concentrate is the optimal treatment for persons with severe haemophilia to avoid or minimize bleeding. This ultimately prevents or reduces joint disease and improves life expectancy and quality of life towards values matching those in the normal population. However, uncertainty still exists around the optimal regimens to be prescribed for prophylaxis. An increasing number of treating physicians and patients are showing interest in patient-tailored approaches to prophylaxis, which aim to harmonize the prophylaxis regimen with the patients' bleeding phenotype, levels of physical activity and a variety of other variables. METHODS: A modified Delphi technique was adopted to generate consensus. The expert panel met in person to set the objectives, be trained on the Delphi technique and agree on the desired level of consensus. Three iterations were used to identify the targets, the scenarios and their combinations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight scenarios and eight target levels were identified and used to issue recommendations. The panel reached the desired level of consensus on positive or negative recommendations. Areas where consensus was not reached were identified and proposed as areas for future research. Prospective assessment of the validity of most of the proposed targets is recommended. CONCLUSIONS: We have generated, by expert consensus, target plasma levels of factor concentrate to be used to tailor treatment for persons with haemophilia.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia treatment varies significantly between individuals, countries and regions and details of bleed rates, factor consumption and injection frequency are often not available. AIM: To provide an overview of the FVIII/FIX treatment practice and outcome for patients with haemophilia A (HA) or haemophilia B (HB) across Europe. METHODS: Non-interventional, 12-month retrospective study where anonymized data were retrieved from haemophilia centres/registers in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Male patients (all ages) receiving coagulation factor treatment 24 months prior to the study, with basal FVIII/FIX levels ≤5 IU dL-1 , without inhibitors, were included. Data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 1346 patients with HA and 312 with HB were included in the analysis; 75% and 57% had severe disease (FVIII/FIX < 1 IU dL-1 ) respectively. Prophylaxis was most common for severe haemophilia, especially for children, whereas on-demand treatment was more common for moderate haemophilia in most countries. The mean (SD) prescribed prophylactic treatment ranged from 67.9 (30.4) to 108.4 (78.1) (HA) and 32.3 (10.2) to 97.7 (32.1) (HB) IU kg-1 per week, across countries. Most patients on prophylaxis were treated ≥3 times/week (HA) or two times/week (HB). The median annual bleeding rate (ABR) for patients on prophylaxis ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 for severe HA, and from 1.0 to 6.0 for severe HB, while those with moderate haemophilia generally had slightly higher ABRs. Median ABRs for on-demand-treated severe HA ranged from 4.5 to 18.0, and for HB, 1.5 to 14.0. CONCLUSION: Treatment practice varied greatly between centres and countries and patients treated on-demand and prophylactically both experienced bleeds, emphasizing the need for further optimization of care.