The EPIC Study: A Clinical Trial To Assess Whether Early Low Dose Prophylaxis In The Absence Of Immunological Danger Signals Reduces Inhibitor Incidence In Previously Untreated Patients (PUPs) With Hemophilia A

Abstract

▪ BackgroundInhibitor development is a complex, multifactorial immune response involving both patient-specific and treatment-related factors. Of the known risk factors, intensive treatment at an early age has been shown to be significant, and clinical observations have suggested that early prophylaxis (i.e. first exposure to FVIII in the absence of a bleed in the first year of age) may protect patients from inhibitor development by inducing FVIII tolerance. AimThis study aimed to assess prospectively if a once-weekly, low-dose prophylactic regimen started before 1 year of age and before the onset of a severe bleeding phenotype (i.e. joint bleed), together with the minimization of immunological danger signals, could reduce the incidence of inhibitor formation in PUPs with severe and moderately severe hemophilia A to 15% or less. MethodsThe EPIC study was a Phase 3b, prospective, single arm, historically-controlled, international multicenter study to assess the incidence rate of inhibitor formation in PUPs with severe and moderately severe hemophilia A during the first 50 exposure days (EDs) of treatment with ADVATE starting with a once-weekly, low-dose (ADVATE 25 IU/kg once weekly), prophylactic regimen. If clinically indicated, it was permissible to increase the frequency of dosing to 2 or 3 times per week. In addition, infusions during the first 20 EDs had to be given 3 to 4 days before or after any vaccinations, which had to be given subcutaneously, not intramuscularly; infusions had to be avoided if the subject had high fever (above 38°C [100°F]). Main enrolment criteria were: severe and moderately severe hemophilia A (FVIII ≤2%), age <1 year, ≤3 EDs to any FVIII-containing product used for treatment of minor bleeds or for precautionary infusions following injury, adequate venous access (without need for central venous access device), no life-threatening conditions (intracranial hemorrhage, severe trauma) or requirement for surgery at the time of enrollment, no evidence of inhibitor ≥0.6 BU in Nijmegen-modified Bethesda assay at study start, no hemostatic defect other than hemophilia A, no clinically significant chronic disease other than hemophilia A,. Information about type of FVIII gene defect was obtained in 17 subjects. FVIII inhibitor tests were performed at screening, at study infusion #3, 6, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50, and at any other time point if an inhibitor was suspected. Positive inhibitor testing had to be confirmed by 2 positive inhibitor tests on samples drawn at least 1 week apart. ResultsA total of 22 subjects were enrolled in the study. Of 20 subjects who met all entry criteria, 19 received treatment; of these, all had severe hemophilia A (FVIII<1%). At study entry 11 of these 19 patients were never exposed to FVIII before (PUPs), while the remaining 8 patients had been treated with FVIII concentrates before. FVIII gene mutation analysis revealed intron 22 inversions in 8 out of 17 subjects, hemizygous missense mutations resulting in a stop-codon in 2 subjects, frame-shift mutations in 2 subjects, and hemizygous missense mutations in 5 subjects. A total of 8 subjects developed a confirmed inhibitor: 2 of these 8 subjects had only borderline positivity at inhibitor testing (never above 0.6 BU) with absence of any anti-FVIII antibodies (IgG, IgA, IgM and IgG subclasses) as tested by ELISA. Thus incidence of inhibitors >0.6 BU in PUPs were 27%. A total of 67 major protocol deviations (PD) were reported in 15 patients: 44 PDs of these were reported in 10 subjects and were related to the treatment regimen and therefore have contrasted with the protocol intention, which was to minimize immunological danger signals and low dose prophylactic regimen. As a result of the observed inhibitor incidence the study was terminated based on futility analysis, i.e. the probability to achieve the primary end-point of inhibitor rate reduction to ≤15%. Details on inhibitor patients will be presented. DiscussionThe EPIC study showed no safety issue as confirmed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board. To align treatment decisions in the presence of danger signals (which are not completely avoidable in children around 1 year of age) with a demanding study protocol was found to be challenging. Thus the hypothesis that an early low dose prophylaxis in the absence of immunological danger signals might reduce inhibitor incidence in PUPs with hemophilia A could neither be verified nor disproved within this study. Disclosures:Auerswald:Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biotest: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL-Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxter: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kurnik:Baxter: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biotest: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL-Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blatny:Baxter: speaker fee Other. Reininger:Baxter Innovations GmbH: Employment.