Continuous infusion in haemophilia: current practice in Europe.

Summary. Continuous infusion (CI) of factor VIII (FVIII) is an effective method for replacement therapy in haemophilia. Recently, concerns have been raised regarding association of CI with the development of inhibitors. The aim of this study was to gain information on the current practices in Europe regarding CI and the true inhibitor incidence after this mode of therapy. In a cross sectional study performed in 22 Comprehensive Care Centres (CCCs), we evaluated CI techniques, treatment protocols, efficacy, safety and complications of CI including inhibitors. Thirteen (59%) CCCs reported a total of 1079 CI treatments, given peri-operatively or for major bleeds, in 742 patients. Most centres used 'adjusted dose' CI aimed at median target FVIII level of 0.8 IU mL(-1). CI was haemostatically very effective with a low incidence of complications: median incidence of postoperative bleeding was 1.8%, six centres observed phlebitis in 2-11% of CI treatments. Only nine (1.2%) patients developed inhibitors (0.45% of 659 severe and 7.2% of 83 mild haemophilia patients). Additional analysis of inhibitor patients revealed several confounding factors (low number of prior FVIII exposure days, high steady-state factor levels during CI, high-risk genotype). In this unprecedentedly large cohort, CI treatment appears to be an effective and safe treatment that does not increase the risk of inhibitor development in patients with severe haemophilia. Thus, previous small case series reports suggesting that CI may increase inhibitors cannot be confirmed. Inhibitor risk in mild haemophilia could not be evaluated as the influence of other, potentially confounding, risk factors could not be excluded.

European principles of haemophilia care.

As the management of haemophilia is complex, it is essential that those with the disorder should have ready access to a range of services provided by a multidisciplinary team of specialists. This document sets out the principles of comprehensive haemophilia care in Europe. Within each country there should be a national organization which oversees the provision of specialist Comprehensive Care Centres that provide the entire spectrum of clinical and laboratory services. Depending upon the size and geographical distribution of the population, a network of smaller haemophilia centres may also be necessary. There should be arrangements for the supply of safe clotting factor concentrates which can also be used in home treatment and prophylaxis programmes. A national register of patients is recommended along with collection of treatment statistics. As comprehensive haemophilia care is multidisciplinary by nature, the need for education and research programmes for all staff members is emphasized: Members of the Interdisciplinary Working Group not represented in the list of authors are mentioned in Section 4 of this document.

Current European practice in immune tolerance induction therapy in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors.

The management of patients with inhibitors is an important challenge in haemophilia care. The lack of randomized controlled trials means that clinical decisions are generally based on subjective opinions, and purchasers' attention is likely to focus on the costs of treatment. In order to assess the current management of inhibitor patients and use of immune tolerance induction therapy (ITI) in Europe, we performed a survey within a European network of 21 comprehensive care centres from 14 countries (the European Haemophilia Therapy Standardisation Board). The survey identified a total of 381 patients with inhibitors attending the centres, 211 (55.4%) of whom had never been exposed to ITI. Between 1998 and 2003, the centres performed 233 procedures and 114 (48.9%) were successful. The survey demonstrated that dosing, which is the time to start and stop the ITI, the type of concentrate to use and the definition of success varied among the centres. Well-designed trials are warranted to guide decision-making, but in the absence of these studies we have developed consensus guidance for the management of inhibitor patients based on current clinical practice, as identified by the survey, and review of the literature.

Quality of life assessment in clinical practice in haemophilia treatment.

The modern management of haemophilia has greatly influenced not only survival of patients, their clinical symptoms and orthopaedic outcome but also their perceived quality of life (QoL). QoL measures recently became an essential part of clinical trials being one of the most important patient-rated outcomes (PROs). Moreover, QoL assessment is essential in pharmacoeconomics. In clinical trials, not only clinical outcomes but also the so-called PROs and health-economic outcomes are included. Different types of economic evaluations may be conducted in order to describe the economic burden of a disease condition, to determine the cost of care and to assess and evaluate alternative treatments in terms of both costs and effects as well as benefits and outcomes with the aim of optimizing the use of resources. For these evaluations, the following analyses are performed: descriptive cost of illness study, incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, incremental cost-utility analysis and incremental cost-benefit analysis. By contrast, PROs are derived from direct patient reports and they allow to evaluate the impact of a disease and its treatment on patients' well-being and functioning. PROs include health-related quality of life, patient preferences/utilities, treatment satisfaction and other PROs such as functional assessment, etc. Choosing a QoL measure, study- and instrument-related aspects have to be taken into account. Finally, QoL assessment will become a part of the regular clinical assessment of persons with haemophilia, in order to provide trustworthy data of perceived well-being to be compared over time and in order to assess treatment efficacy and quality of care.

Active anti-interferon-alpha immunization: a European-Israeli, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 242 HIV-1--infected patients (the EURIS study).

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II/III study was designed to evaluate safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of an active anti-interferon-alpha (anti-IFN-alpha) vaccine in asymptomatic HIV-1-infected patients. The active immunization was aimed at inducing anti-IFN-alpha antibodies to counteract IFN-alpha overproduction. In all, 242 patients, recruited between December 1995 and July 1996 in eight centers in Europe and Israel, with CD4+ counts from 100 to 634 cells/mm3 who were receiving or not receiving antiretroviral therapy (including protease inhibitors) were randomized to receive either anti-IFN-alpha vaccine or placebo. The anti-IFN-alpha immunization regimen consisted of three priming injections delivered intramuscularly at 1-month intervals in a water-in-oil emulsion of inactivated recombinant IFN-alpha-2b (i-IFN-alpha) followed by intramuscular booster injections of i-IFN-alpha adsorbed onto calcium phosphate every 3 months. Immunogenicity to vaccine was defined as an increase of anti-IFN-alpha antibody level of more than twofold the preimmunization value. Clinical progression, changes in antiretroviral treatment, and decrease of CD4+ counts to <200 cells/mm3 were considered endpoints for efficacy evaluation. Contrary to our previous experience, in which six to seven oil priming injections induced a >90% response rate, the three oil-adjuvanted injections in this trial were suboptimal because only 40 of 122 vaccinees (33%) had raised anti-IFN-alpha antibody following immunization. In vaccinees, both antibody responders (AbRV) and nonresponders (AbNRV), the tolerance to the vaccine was good and was without evidence of significant safety concerns. During the course of the trial, 62% of vaccine responders, 64% of nonresponders, and 63% of placebo patients elected to add protease inhibitor-containing regimens as new treatment guidelines were established, resulting in a marked decrease in clinical and laboratory progression such that the expected endpoints of the study could not be achieved and further follow-up was halted. Despite the unexpectedly low immunogenicity and fewer than expected endpoints, anti-IFN-alpha vaccine recipients, in comparison with placebo recipients, showed a lower rate of disease progression, nonelective treatment changes, and/or CD4+ count decrease to <200 cells/mm3, but the difference was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the subgroup of patients immunized to IFN-alpha who experienced a rise in anti-IFN-alpha antibodies had a significantly lower rate of occurrence of HIV-1-related events and of any combination of the endpoints compared with those of either placebo patients or vaccinees who failed to develop anti-IFN-alpha antibodies, the latter two groups behaving similarly. Further studies of this approach are warranted because these data suggest a beneficial effect of this adjuvant approach.