Immune Tolerance Induction In Haemophilia Research Articles

Emicizumab Efficacy in Severe Hemophilia (A): Experience in Ecuador

Introduction: In Ecuador, there are 1708 cases of hemophilia in a population of 17,643,060 habitants; according to the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) Annual Global Survey Report 2020 released in October 2021. Eleven patients use emicizumab in Ecuador (ten patients under ministerial authorization, and one patient through private insurance); being the first administered in June 2021. Objectives: To describe the demographic characteristics of patients receiving emicizumab in Ecuador. To determine efficacy and response with emicizumab: based on annual bleeding rate (ABR), performance status assessment, activity, and participation. Methods: Population: Pediatric Severe Hemophilia A (PwHA) patients (<12 years) and adults/adolescents (>12 years), both from the public and private health sector. Study design: Retrospective, multicentric study, with a case-report research design. The sources of information were the medical records of the patients. Efficacy variables: ABR was calculated by: (number of bleeds/number of days times 365.25). Body structure and function was assessed with the Hemophilia Joint Health Score 2.1 (HJHS). Activity and participation were assessed with the Functional Independence Score in Hemophilia (FISH). Statistic analysis: Shapiro-Wilk test to know the distribution of the sample, t-Test paired tests (parametric), Wilcoxon statistic (non-parametric); Descriptive statistics: relative frequencies, measures of central tendency and dispersion, column graphs. Analysis and results: Ten patients with an average (Q1,Q3) age of 11.5 years (7.15) were registered. The youngest patient was one year old and the oldest, fifty years old. 90% (n:9) had hemophilia A with high-response inhibitors. Prior to starting emicizumab: 20% (n:2) presented Central Nervous System bleeding, 30% (n:3) had muscle bleeding, and 10% (n:1) developed catheter-associated infection. The mean ABR was 10 pre-emicizumab events, and 0.3 post-emicizumab events (p=0.002), with follow-ups at 22 months (n: 2), 17 months (n:2), 3 months (n:2 ), 4 months (n: 3), 5 months (n: 1). The mean HJHS (±SD, n) was 20.9 (± 20,096, 10) pre-emicizumab, and 9.7 (± 16.52, 10) (p=0.003) The mean by FISH (±SD, n) was 16.2 (± 8.59, 10) pre-emicizumab, and from 22.6 (± 11.62, 10) with the use of emicizumab. The use of the t-Test for paired samples determined that there are statistically significant differences between the pre-emicizumab and post-emicizumab groups for the variables ABR, HJHS and FISH (95% confidence level). Conclusion: The use of Emicizumab allowed better control of joint bleeding; and it contributed favorably in the evolutionary course of both the functional state and the activity. It is essential to corroborate these results with a longer follow-up and a larger sample size. Bibliography: 1. Alvarez Roman M: Spanish guidelines for the management of hemophilia. 2022, 1-190. 2. Callaghan M, Negrier C, Paz-Priel I, Chang T, Chebon S y col: Long-term outcomes with emicizumab prophylaxis for hemophilia A with or without FVIII inhibitors from the HAVEN 1-4 studies. Blood. 2021;137(16):2231-2242 3. Carcao M, Escurriola C, Santagostina E, Oldenburg J, Liesner R y col: The changing face of immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A with the advent of emicizumab. Haemophilia. 2019;25:676-684. 4. Ellsworth P, Ma A: Factor-mimetic and rebalancing therapies in hemophilia A and B: the end of factor concentrates?. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2021, Dec 10;2021(1):219-225. 5. Young G: Management of children with hemophilia A: How emicizumab has changed the landscape. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2021 Jul;19(7):1629-1637

Race, ethnicity, and immune tolerance induction in hemophilia A in the United States

BackgroundIn racially diverse communities, treatment of chronic diseases can vary across racial and ethnic groups. ObjectivesTo examine healthcare disparities in hemophilia care in the United States by evaluating receipt of immune tolerance induction (ITI) among different racial and ethnic groups. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, people with severe hemophilia A with an inhibitor who entered the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Community Counts registry between 2013 and 2017, were aged ≥5 years at study entry, and had a history of an inhibitor (n = 614) were included. The proportion of participants receiving ITI was examined according to race and ethnicity in bivariable analysis and multivariable analysis adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were computed. ResultsAmong 614 participants included in the study, 56.4% were non-Hispanic (NH) White, 19.7% were NH Black, 18.4% were Hispanic, and 4.9% were Asian. ITI was received by 85.2% of participants. On bivariable analysis, ITI treatment did not vary by race or ethnicity. On multivariable analysis, NH Black and Hispanic participants were significantly less likely to receive ITI compared to NH White participants (adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.99] and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75-0.93], respectively). ConclusionAlthough the role of ITI may evolve with growing use of emicizumab and the introduction of new hemophilia treatment products, understanding characteristics that influence care, particularly race and ethnicity, where physician bias and patient mistrust can occur, will remain relevant and applicable to other complex therapies, including gene therapy.

Determinants of successful immune tolerance induction in hemophilia A: systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundImmune tolerance induction (ITI) aims to eradicate anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies (inhibitors) in persons with hemophilia A. However, this burdensome treatment fails in 10% to 40%. To estimate the chance of ITI success in clinical decision making, it is important to identify the predictors of ITI success. ObjectivesWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the current evidence on determinants of ITI outcome in persons with hemophilia A. MethodsA literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials, cohort, or case-control studies reporting on the predictors for ITI outcome in persons with hemophilia A. The main outcome was ITI success. Methodological quality was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, rating as high if ≥11 of 13 criteria were met. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for ITI success were calculated for each determinant. ITI success was defined as negative inhibitor titer (<0.6 BU/mL), FVIII recovery ≥66% of expected, and FVIII half-life ≥6 hours in 16 (59.3%) studies. ResultsWe included 27 studies, involving 1,734 participants. Methodological quality of 6 (22.2%) studies (418 participants) was rated as high. Twenty different determinants were assessed. Historical peak titer ≤100 BU/mL (compared with >100 BU/mL, OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.1), pre-ITI titer ≤10 BU/mL (compared with >10 BU/mL, OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3), and peak titer during ITI ≤100 BU/mL (compared with >100 BU/mL, OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8) were associated with a higher chance of ITI success. ConclusionOur results suggest that determinants related to the inhibitor titer are associated with ITI success.

Role of Regulatory Cells in Immune Tolerance Induction in Hemophilia A.

The main complication of hemophilia A treatment is the development of neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) against factor VIII (FVIII). Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the prescribed treatment for inhibitor eradication, although its working mechanism remains unresolved. To clarify this mechanism, we compared blood samples of hemophilia A patients with and without inhibitors for presence of immunoregulatory cells and markers, including regulatory B-cells (Bregs), regulatory T-cells (Tregs), myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and expression of regulatory markers on T-cells (programmed cell death protein 1 [PD1], inducable T-cell costimulator, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 [CTLA4]), by use of flow cytometry. By cross-sectional analysis inhibitor patients (N = 20) were compared with inhibitor-negative (N = 28) and ex-inhibitor (N = 17) patients. In another longitudinal study, changes in immunoregulatory parameters were evaluated during ITI (N = 12) and compared with inhibitor-negative hemophilia A patients (N = 36). The frequency of Bregs, but not of Tregs nor MDSCs, was significantly reduced in inhibitor patients (3.2%) compared with inhibitor-negative (5.9%) and ex-inhibitor patients (8.9%; P < 0.01). CTLA4 expression on T-cells was also reduced (mean fluorescence intensity 133 in inhibitor versus 537 in inhibitor-negative patients; P < 0.01). Fittingly, in patients followed during ITI, inhibitor eradication associated with increased Bregs, increased Tregs, and increased expression of CTLA4 and PD1 on CD4+ T-cells. In conclusion, inhibitor patients express significantly lower frequency of Bregs and Tregs marker expression, which are restored by successful ITI. Our findings suggest that an existing anti-FVIII immune response is associated with deficits in peripheral tolerance mechanisms and that Bregs and changes in immunoregulatory properties of CD4+ T-cells likely contribute to ITI in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors.

The changing face of immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A with the advent of emicizumab.

IntroductionAs 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.AimThe 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 ConclusionsDespite 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.

Economic Impact of Immune Tolerance Induction (ITI) with Recombinant Factor VIII Fc Fusion Protein (rFVIIIFc) Compared to Conventional Recombinant Factor VIII (rFVIII)

Introduction:Hemophilia A results from a clotting protein factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency, which leads to the need for the use of exogenous FVIII. Such therapy is effective unless alloantibodies (inhibitors) develop and render FVIII replacement ineffective. Patients with high-titer inhibitors may try to eradicate the presence of these inhibitors by undergoing ITI, an often costly process that requires the prolonged use of frequent doses of FVIII to induce FVIII antigen-specific tolerance. There is no consensus on the best approach to achieve tolerance and no product has been approved by any regulatory agency for ITI treatment in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors. The Fc portion of rFVIIIFc has shown immunomodulatory properties in mice, and chart reviews and case reports suggest that tolerization with rFVIIIFc in first-attempt ITI patients can potentially be achieved rapidly (i.e., ≤18 months) and therefore may possibly offer cost savings compared to conventional rFVIII. This analysis assessed the economic consequences and budget impact of using rFVIIIFc vs. conventional rFVIII for first-attempt immune tolerance induction (ITI) in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors.Methods:A literature-based model was developed to estimate the effect of rFVIIIFc vs conventional rFVIII on drug cost of first-attempt ITI, based on modelled ITI duration and outcome (rates and time to ITI success or failure) for US patients with varying clinical profiles (e.g., historical peak titer, FVIII dose) over a 3-year period. In the model, at any given time after ITI initiation (on either rFVIIIFc or rFVIII), a patient was categorized as ongoing ITI, post-ITI as success, or post-ITI as failure. The duration and outcomes for patients treated with rFVIIIFc ITI were based on observed data for first-attempt ITI patients with varied clinical profiles and ITI regimens from in chart reviews and case reports (n = 9). In the absence of direct head-to-head observations, the duration and outcome of ITI for the exact same patients in a scenario in which they received rFVIII (instead of rFVIIIFc) at the same doses were estimated indirectly using a previously published regression model (Bojke et al. 2009, Value in Health, 12(7), A378-A379) based on data for 113 patients from international and national registries that adjusts for historical and pre-ITI titer levels, time from inhibitor diagnosis to ITI start, and ITI factor dose. To place the cost comparison results in the perspective of a third-party US payer, a budget impact analysis was undertaken on a population of typical hemophilia A patients (after adjusting for patient characteristics) who are embarking on first-attempt ITI in a plan of 10 million insured members. In this analysis, the number of patients starting ITI each year was assumed constant, and patients who successfully eradicated inhibitors with ITI would transition back to FVIII prophylaxis.Results:The model predicted that, compared to rFVIII, rFVIIIFc would result in a reduction in estimated time to ITI success (rFVIIIFc: 9.43 months, rFVIII: 16.80 months), increased success probability at 20 months (rFVIIIFc: 67%, rFVIII: 25%), and lower 3-year per-patient costs (rFVIIIFc: $1,709,000, rFVIII: $3,630,000), respectively. In the budget impact analysis for a US health plan of 10 million insured members, 11.2 patients were expected to be newly diagnosed hemophilia A patients, among whom 1.17 patients were expected to develop inhibitors to FVIII and initiate ITI each year. By year 3, the predicted number of successful ITI patients increased by 23% and the budget savings for the plan were $103,738 per patient per year (for the ~1 patient who started ITI each year) after the inclusion of rFVIIIFc for ITI and subsequent prophylaxis when patients successfully eradicated inhibitors.Conclusions:Based on this mathematical economic model of first-attempt ITI patients, the modeled faster time to tolerization with rFVIIIFc vs. rFVIII, resulted in estimated per-patient and overall budget savings in ITI from a US payer perspective. Current prospective studies (e.g. verITI-8) will provide additional evidence on the efficacy of rFVIIIFc for ITI in Hemophilia A patients with inhibitors. DisclosuresLi:Bioverativ: Employment. Wilson:SOBI: Employment. Botteman:Daiichi Sankyo Incorporated: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pharmerit International: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Other: Provided consulting to Bioverativ, Research Funding. Nicoloso:Bioverativ: Other: an employee of Pharmerit, which provided consulting to Bioverativ. Krishnan:Bioverativ: Employment. Su:Bioverativ: Employment.

The Atlanta Protocol: Immune Tolerance Induction in Pediatric Patients with Hemophilia a and Inhibitors on Emicizumab

Introduction: The formation of neutralizing anti-factor VIII (fVIII) antibodies, called inhibitors, is a challenging complication in hemophilia A care. While novel non-factor therapies significantly reduce bleeding symptoms in patients with hemophilia A and inhibitors, the absence of fVIII tolerance remains unchanged. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the hemostatic efficacy and safety of bypassing agents necessary for the management of breakthrough bleeds in patients with inhibitors on these novel therapies. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) remains the primary method for eradicating inhibitors and restoring the hemostatic response to fVIII. Here we report on the response to ITI in pediatric patients following initiation of the bispecific humanized monoclonal antibody Emicizumab.Methods: Patients between the ages of 1 - 11 years old with hemophilia A and an active inhibitor (≥0.6 Bethesda Units (BU)/mL) treated at the Emory Pediatric Hemophilia Treatment Center were included in this analysis. In general, ITI was initiated after four weekly loading doses of Emicizumab with standard or extended half-life recombinant (rfVIII) or plasma-derived (pdfVIII) fVIII at 100 units/kg three times per week. Factor choice was determined by the fVIII product used for the ITI attempt prior to initiation of Emicizumab or a standard half-life third generation rfVIII product if no prior ITI attempts. FVIII pharmacokinetics during ITI including the estimated fVIII half-life, fVIII incremental recovery of expected, and inhibitor titers were measured with chromogenic-based assays using bovine reagents. Bleeding symptoms and treatment regimens for bleeds/procedures were also monitored.Results: Eight patients are currently receiving ITI according to this Atlanta Protocol. Details regarding this cohort are outlined in Table 1. Three of the 8 patients required central venous access for ITI fVIII infusions. These eight patients have historical peak inhibitor titers, defined as the highest inhibitor titer prior to this ITI regimen, ranging from 2.0 - 198 BU/mL. Four patients have just recently started ITI. The other 4 patients (patients 1, 2, 4, and 5) have been treated with Emicizumab and ITI for a median duration of 15 weeks (range 13-18 weeks). Two of the 4 patients are on ITI with a standard half-life third generation rfVIII product, 1 is on a standard half-life third generation B domain deleted (BDD) rfVIII product, and 1 is on an extended half-life (EHL) rfVIII-Fc fusion product. Their last measured inhibitor titers after initiation of ITI range from 0.3 - 3.7 chromogenic BU (CBU). All inhibitor titers declined with the start of ITI, and none of the 4 patients experienced an amnestic response (Figure 1). The fVIII incremental recovery improved in 3 of the 4 patients from a median of 30% of expected (range 17-69%) prior to Emicizumab with ITI to 85% of expected (range 67-85%) at the last clinical evaluation. The 1 patient remaining has an fVIII incremental recovery <10% of expected at the last clinical evaluation. Only one patient has required treatment with a single dose of recombinant activated factor VII (rfVIIa) for a right knee hemarthrosis during ITI without complication. There were 3 additional mild bleeding symptoms in 2 patients that did not require intervention including 1 trauma-induced forehead hematoma that self-resolved and 2 episodes self-resolving epistaxis lasting <5 minutes. Two of the 4 patients reported no bleeding symptoms. There were no episodes of thrombosis or thrombotic microangiopathy.Conclusions: This is the first report detailing the Atlanta Protocol for ITI in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors receiving Emicizumab prophylaxis. Although early, these results suggest that ITI can be safely administered in these patients and is able to achieve continued improvement in clinical indicators of tolerance. DisclosuresBatsuli:Bayer: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board; Octapharma: Other: Advisory Board. Zimowski:National Hemophilia Association/Shire: Other: Funding for clinical fellowship in Hemostasis/Thrombosis. Meeks:Bioverativ: Other: Advisory Board; Bayer: Other: Advisory Board; CSL Behring: Other: Advisory Board; Catalyst Biosciences: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board; HEMA Biologics: Other: Advisory Board; Shire: Other: Advisory Board; Pfizer: Research Funding. Sidonio:Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Bioverativ: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Biomarin: Other: Advisory Board; Novo Nordisk: Other: Advisory Board; Octapharma: Other: Advisory Board; Grifols: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Uniqure: Other: Advisory Board; CSL Behring: Other: Advisory Board; Shire: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kedrion: Research Funding.

A Novel Approach to Immune Tolerance Induction in Hemophilia Α with Factor VIII Inhibitor

Factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors are currently the most significant complication of hemophilia A therapy. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the treatment of choice for inhibitor eradication. However, the optimal ITI regimen has not been identified. We describe an ITI approach for an adolescent male with severe hemophilia A and recurrent and refractory high-titer FVIII inhibitor. This strategy is now being tested in a randomized, controlled trial (NCT03204539).A 1-year-old white, Hispanic male with severe hemophilia A, intron 22 inversion, developed a FVIII inhibitor while receiving on-demand treatment with recombinant FVIII (rFVIII). Due to life-threatening bleeding despite bypassing agents, he was immediately started on ITI with daily rFVIII along with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), solumedrol, and rituximab. He achieved tolerance after 15 months and was switched to every-other-day dosing for prophylaxis. Unfortunately, on prophylaxis he had breakthrough bleeding and inhibitor recurrence, and has required additional ITI regimens over the past 14 years (Table 1).Most recently, the family agreed to switch to Wilate® [von Willebrand Factor/Coagulation Factor VIII Complex (Human); Octapharma USA, Inc.; Hoboken, NJ; U.S. License No. 1646] as an alternative von Willebrand factor (VWF)/FVIII concentrate since he was unable to achieve tolerance on prior plasma-derived (pd) VWF/FVIII concentrate at 100 international units (IU)/kg daily for ~4 years. Wilate® was started when inhibitor titer was 1.5 Bethesda Units (BU). Initial FVIII recovery was 30% and 24-hour trough level was 1%. After several months, blood samples were sent to a diagnostic laboratory at Haemophilie-Zentrum Rhein Main GmbH for lot selection. Lot selection entails measuring residual FVIII activity when patient plasma is mixed with different lots of VWF/FVIII in vitro. This involves using the modified New Oxford method to measure residual FVIII activity after incubation of a FVIII source (lot) with the inhibitor patient plasma. The inhibitor titer is the reciprocal of the dilution of patient plasma that results in 50% of residual FVIII, similar to the Bethesda Unit. Ideally, the lot providing the highest residual FVIII activity will more effectively challenge the immune system, provide better prevention and control of bleeding, and have shorter time to tolerance. Investigators have demonstrated the utility of lot section in in vitro studies. The patient's plasma was tested against 6 lots of Wilate® and the lot with the lowest inhibitor activity was selected for prescription. This lot was allocated to this patient, and the prescribing physician included the lot number on the factor prescription for distribution to the patient via the patient's specialty pharmacy. The patient received Wilate® from the same lot for ~11 months. During that time, his inhibitor decreased from 2.6 BU to 0 after 5 months. A new plasma sample was tested against an additional 5 lots of Wilate®. Inhibitor was negative at that time and all lots of Wilate® revealed a negative inhibitory activity. One lot was selected for ongoing treatment. After 18 months his 48-hour trough FVIII level was detectable. He had blood drawn for pharmacokinetic analysis, which showed FVIII recovery of 55% and an estimated half-life of 6.75 hours. He was switched to every-other-day dosing and has had only one trauma-induced soft-tissue bleed despite increased physical activity, with negative inhibitor and a 48-hour trough of 2%. DisclosuresThornburg:Shire: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; ATHN: Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Octapharma: Research Funding; Bioverativ: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Biomarin: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; NovoNordisk: Research Funding; Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital: Research Funding. Ducore:OPKO: Other: investigator; HemaBiologics: Consultancy, Other: investigator, travel support; Shire: Consultancy, Other: travel support, investigator; Biomarin: Other: investigator; Octapharma: Consultancy, Other: travel support, investigator , Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Other: travel support, investigator; Pfizer: Other: investigator; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: investigator; CSL Behring: Other: investigator.

Immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A patients with inhibitor using Fc fusion recombinant factor VIII product

Immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A patients with inhibitor using Fc fusion recombinant factor VIII product

A Novel Platform for Immune Tolerance Induction in Hemophilia A Mice

Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked bleeding disease caused by factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency. We previously demonstrated that FVIII is produced specifically in liver sinusoid endothelial cells (LSECs) and to some degree in myeloid cells, and thus, in the present work, we seek to restrict the expression of FVIII transgene to these cells using cell-specific promoters. With this approach, we aim to limit immune response in a mouse model by lentiviral vector (LV)-mediated gene therapy encoding FVIII. To increase the target specificity of FVIII expression, we included miRNA target sequences (miRTs) (i.e., miRT-142.3p, miRT-126, and miRT-122) to silence expression in hematopoietic cells, endothelial cells, and hepatocytes, respectively. Notably, we report, for the first time, therapeutic levels of FVIII transgene expression at its natural site of production, which occurred without the formation of neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors). Moreover, inhibitors were eradicated in FVIII pre-immune mice through a regulatory Tcell-dependent mechanism. In conclusion, targeting FVIII expression to LSECs and myeloid cells by using LVs with cell-specific promoter minimized off-target expression and immune responses. Therefore, at least for some transgenes, expression at the physiologic site of synthesis can enhance efficacy and safety, resulting in long-term correction of genetic diseases such as HA.

Extended half‐life factor VIII for immune tolerance induction in haemophilia

Extended half‐life factor <scp>VIII</scp> for immune tolerance induction in haemophilia

Early eradication of factor VIII inhibitor in patients with congenital hemophilia A by immune tolerance induction with a high dose of immunoglobulin.

The production of factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitory antibodies is a serious problem in patients with hemophilia A. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the only strategy proven to eradicate persistent inhibitors and has been shown to be successful in 70 % of patients with hemophilia A. However, a minority of hemophilia patients present life-long inhibitors. To eliminate such inhibitors, we designed an intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) strategy in combination with high dose recombinant FVIII for ITI in hemophilia A children with inhibitors. Four previously untreated patients produced inhibitors within 16 exposures to FVIII. The peak inhibitor titers in these patients ranged from 3 to 14 BU/mL. The patients received ITI combined with IVIG within 1.5 months after the inhibitors were detected. All patients showed a negative titer for inhibitors by 28 days, with no anamnestic responses. The recovery of FVIII in the plasma concentration was normalized within three months after initiation of ITI. An additional course of IVIG administration led to induction of complete tolerance by 20 months after initiation of ITI therapy in all patients. ITI treatment with high-dose FVIII combined with IVIG may be effective for the early elimination of inhibitors.

The use of intravenous immunoglobulin in immune tolerance induction in inherited haemophilia A: a single-centre experience and a review of literature.

The immune tolerance induction is the treatment of choice for the eradication of factor VIII inhibitors, a serious complication of inherited haemophilia A. Despite the preferred treatment of patients with good prognosis and testing of different regimens, the immune tolerance is achieved in 70-80%. Several modifications of regimens including the addition of immunomodulatory agents were proposed in order to improve immune tolerance induction (ITI) outcome. Intravenous immunoglobulin has complex immunomodulatory properties and has been used in immune tolerance induction since the introduction of Malmö regimen in the 1980s. The aim of the work is to evaluate the published evidence of its use in ITI in haemophilia A. In addition, the authors' own experience with a high-dose regimen using human plasma-derived factor VIII containing von Willebrand factor and pulsed IVIg is reported. The course of three patients with severe inherited haemophilia A and inhibitor (all high responders, two with poor prognosis, one with rescue treatment) is described. At least partial success was achieved in all patients and no adverse events attributable to intravenous immunoglobulin were observed. Despite the limited evidence, the addition of intravenous immunoglobulin appears to be a promising treatment modification for patients with poor prognosis or previous failure of immune tolerance induction.

Immune tolerance induction in hemophilia

The development of inhibitors is the main complication of hemophilia therapy. Inhibitors occur in 25–30% and in 2–5% of patients with severe hemophilia A and B, respectively. They render treatment and prevention of bleeds difficult. The only known therapeutic strategy able to eliminate inhibitors is immune tolerance induction (ITI) that consists in regular high-dose FVIII/FIX infusions. ITI is a demanding treatment both for patients/parents and clinicians, it is costly, but provides 60–80% chance of success. Although used since late 1970, many aspects of ITI still needs to be optimized and further investigated. This review is aimed at reporting what is known from the published literature and what still need to be investigated in this field.

Challenges in the Management of Hemophilia B with Inhibitor

Development of factor IX (FIX) inhibitor is a rare but challenging complication in hemophilia B. In addition to inefficacy of specific replacement therapy, FIX inhibitors increase morbidity due to serious allergic reactions/anaphylaxis upon treatment with FIX. Limited experience with immune tolerance induction (ITI) shows a high risk of nephrotic syndrome development and poor ITI outcomes. Recently, immunomodulation therapy has been used in ITI regimens in hemophilia B; however, relevant guidelines for ITI in hemophilia B are still lacking. We describe a 7-year-old hemophilia B patient with "null" mutation Arg29 stop who underwent surgery and massive transfusion therapy in the neonatal period and developed an FIX inhibitor after consecutive 20 exposures to FIX concentrate. At the age of 6 years, a high-dose ITI was commenced combined with immunomodulation therapy including rituximab, dexamethasone, and intravenous immunoglobulin. Allergic reactions that occurred in the third week of ITI were resolved by premedication with antihistamines and continued immunomodulation protocol without any need for ITI interruption. Inhibitor was negative from week 10; however, doses of FIX continued unchanged until pharmacokinetic criteria for success were met at month 9 of ITI. One year after the start of ITI, the patient started regular prophylaxis with FIX 41 IU/kg three times a week. No further allergic reactions or any signs of nephrotic syndrome have occurred.

Immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A patients with inhibitors by treatment with recombinant factor VIII: a retrospective non‐interventional study

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) can overcome inhibitory factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies in haemophilia A patients receiving FVIII replacement therapy. The objective was to evaluate the use of sucrose-formulated, full-length recombinant FVIII (rFVIII-FS) for ITI therapy. Patients (<8 years at ITI start) with severe haemophilia A and a peak inhibitor titre >5 Bethesda units (BU) who underwent ITI with any rFVIII-FS dose for ≥ 9 months (or until success) were eligible for this retrospective study. Efficacy analyses included descriptions of ITI treatment regimens and outcomes; ITI success was determined solely at the discretion of the investigator. Safety analyses included assessment of adverse events. Of 51 enrolled patients, 32 [high dose (≥ 85 IU kg(-1) day(-1)), n = 21; low dose, n = 11] were eligible for analysis. ITI was successful in 69% (22/32) of patients (high dose, 66.7%; low dose, 72.7%) after a median of 1.4 years (range, 0.1-3.6 years). Influencing factors for ITI success were start of ITI <1 year after inhibitor detection and an inhibitor titre <10 BU at ITI start. All patients successfully tolerized with ITI continued to receive rFVIII-FS prophylaxis as maintenance therapy, with no inhibitor recurrence from the end of ITI until study enrolment. Use of rFVIII-FS for ITI was effective and well tolerated; success rates were similar to those in published studies.

Late immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A patients

The incidence of inhibitor development in patients with severe haemophilia A is approximately 30%. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is commonly utilized to eradicate these antibodies and is successful in 63-100% of cases. Potential predictors of a poor outcome in ITI include a high preinduction titre, high historical peak titre, older age at start of ITI and prolonged interval from diagnosis to start of ITI. The goal of this study was to characterize the outcomes of patients from our centre who have undergone late ITI, many of whom had poor prognostic features. Medical records of patients in our centre with severe/moderately severe haemophilia A (<2% FVIII activity) and history of inhibitor were reviewed. Data were abstracted from all patients who attempted late ITI. Nine patients underwent late ITI between January 1999 and December 2011. Within this cohort, 7 (78%) patients were black, 6 (67%) were <21 years old and 4 (44%) had a family history of inhibitor. Three patients had previously received ITI unsuccessfully. To date, 4 (44%) patients are tolerized (persistently negative inhibitor titre, FVIII recovery >66% and successfully treated with FVIII products ± FVIII t(½) of >6 h). Three patients are partially tolerized (have low responding inhibitor, variable FVIII recovery and successfully treated with FVIII products). Two patients are not tolerized. Some patients with haemophilia A and long-standing inhibitors may benefit from ITI.

Immune tolerance in haemophilia: the long journey to the fork in the road

Antibody eradication is the ultimate goal of inhibitor management. The only clinically proven strategy for achieving antigen-specific tolerance to factor VIII is immune tolerance induction (ITI). Our knowledge about ITI in haemophilia A and B was, historically, derived from small cohort studies and retrospective national and international ITI registries. Practice is now further influenced by prospective cohort data, and the results of a single prospective randomized international ITI trial. However, due to the low incidence of inhibitors in haemophilia B, there are few comparable data from which to develop a useful evidence-based approach to the prevention and eradication of factor IX inhibitors. The lack of an effective strategy is particularly problematic given the morbidity associated with the unique occurrence of allergic and anaphylactic reactions that often herald factor IX antibody development and preclude effective eradication. This paper will discuss our current understanding of immune tolerance outcome and outcome predictors for haemophilia A and B; review the current consensus practice recommendations for ITI; and summarize the emerging body of immunological science relating to antibody formation and tolerance. It will conclude by suggesting how our knowledge might inform the future investigative priorities impacting the therapeutic and preventative tolerance strategies of tomorrow.

Immune tolerance induction for patients with severe hemophilia A: a critical literature review

The development of inhibitors that neutralize the function of clotting factor VIII (FVIII) is currently the most challenging complication associated with the treatment of hemophilia A as it increases the disease-related morbidity and mortality. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the only documented strategy to eradicate persistent inhibitors in severe hemophilia A patients. Several studies have been conducted so far to identify patient- and treatment-related factors associated with greater ITI success. The currently available literature on ITI in hemophilia A will be critically reviewed in this article. In particular, we will focus on the role of the type of FVIII product on ITI outcome by analyzing the clinical and experimental data.

Immune tolerance induction in haemophilia: evidence and the way forward.

Given the inhibitor-associated morbidity resulting from limited effective treatment options, antibody eradication is the ultimate goal of inhibitor management. The only clinically proven strategy for achieving antigen-specific tolerance to factor VIII is immune tolerance induction (ITI). First reported over 30 years ago, much of our current knowledge about ITI in haemophilia A and B was derived from small cohort studies and retrospective national and international ITI registries. More recently, prospective randomised ITI trials have been designed and initiated to answer outstanding questions related to the optimisation of current therapeutic strategy in haemophilia A. However, due to the low incidence of inhibitor development in haemophilia B compared to haemophilia A, there are few comparable data from which to develop a useful evidence-based approach to the prevention and eradication of FIX inhibitors. The lack of an effective strategy is particularly problematic given the even greater morbidity associated with the almost unique occurrence of allergic and anaphylactic reactions that often herald FIX antibody development, and further complicates attempts to eradicate FIX inhibitors. Ultimately, successful inhibitor prevention and eradication strategies for both diseases will emerge from the clinical translation of our evolving knowledge of immune stimulation and tolerance. This paper will discuss our current understanding of immune tolerance outcome and outcome predictors for haemophilia A and B; it will also review the current consensus recommendations for ITI, as well as the emerging scientific body of immunological knowledge that may significantly impact the therapeutic and preventative strategies of the future.