Inhibitors: Diagnostic challenges, unknowns of inhibitor development, treatment of bleeding and surgery, and insights into diagnosis and treatment in China.

Factor (F) VIII inhibitors develop in around 30% of previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia, to a lesser extend in moderate and mild haemophilia A and in up to 10% in severe haemophilia B. Diagnostic challenges and questions remain including access to high quality testing, the role for functional inhibitor testing and binding antibody testing, and the adaptations needed in the presence of non-factor replacement therapy. Despite significant gains in knowledge there are still many unanswered questions underlying the immunologic mechanisms of inhibitor development and tolerance. Therapeutic options include eradication of inhibitors using immune tolerance induction therapy (ITI), prophylaxis with bypassing agents (i.e., recombinant activated factor VII /rFVIIa or activated prothrombin complex concentrate/aPCC) or non-factor replacement therapies (e.g., emicizumab) and treatment of bleeds or coverage of surgeries/invasive procedure. Recently a haemophilia centre capacity building program was launched in China to further develop the infrastructure and support needed to improve the diagnosis of haemophilia, detection of inhibitors, and continue to improve the care of patients with haemophilia and inhibitors.

Management of haemophilia A with inhibitors: A regional cross-talk.

INTRODUCTION: The development of inhibitors with factor VIII (FVIII) replacement therapy is one of the most common and challenging complications of haemophilia A (HA) treatment, jeopardising treatment efficacy and predisposing patients to high risks of morbidity and mortality. The management of patients with inhibitors is particularly challenging in countries where resources are limited. AIM: To provide a comprehensive summary of the management of HA with inhibitors while focusing on differences in practice between Western and non-Western countries and how resource scarcity can impact HA management, leading to suboptimal outcomes in patients with inhibitors. METHODS: Summary of key evidence and regional expert opinion. RESULTS: We address, particularly, the diagnosis of and testing for inhibitors, as well as the epidemiology of inhibitors, including incidence, prevalence and disease burden. Secondly, we provide an overview of the current treatment landscape in HA with inhibitors regarding the eradication of inhibitors with immune tolerance induction and the treatment and prevention of bleeding with bypassing agents, non-factor replacement agents and other experimental therapies. This is complemented with insights from the authors around the applicability of, and challenges associated with, such therapies in their settings of practice. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude by proposing some key steps towards bridging the gaps in the management of HA with inhibitors in resource-limited countries, including: (1) the collection of quality data that can inform healthcare reforms and policies; (2) improving disease knowledge among healthcare practitioners and patients with the aim of standardising disease management across centres and (3) working towards promoting equal access to HA care and therapies for everyone.

A low-dose rituximab regimen for first-line treatment of acquired haemophilia A.

A low-dose rituximab regimen for first-line treatment of acquired haemophilia A. INTRODUCTION: Acquired haemophilia A (AHA) is a rare disease caused by the development of autoantibodies against FVIII. Diagnosis involves confirmation of FVIII deficiency and the presence of an inhibitor via the Bethesda assay. Severe bleeding is often managed with bypassing agents such as recombinant factor VII. This is then followed by eradication of the inhibitor with immunosuppression which typically includes a corticosteroid backbone. AIM: Review the current management and outcomes of AHA in Queensland, Australia. Determine the incidence, demographics and clinical characteristics of AHA patients. METHODS: Retrospective case series of AHA diagnosed between May 2014 and August 2018. Data were derived from the Australian Bleeding Disorders Registry and state-wide pathology database. Data collection proforma was completed by the treating haematologist and reviewed/compiled centrally. RESULTS: 24 patients were identified (incidence 1 in 1.27 million). The median age was 76.5 years. Median follow-up was 20 months. Index bleed was atraumatic and skin/soft tissue in the majority of patients. Recombinant FVIIa was the most commonly used haemostatic therapy and effective in 85% of patients. Immunosuppression and steroid usage were uniform. Upfront second agent was used in 75% of patients and was most commonly rituximab. 87.5% of patients achieved a complete remission in a median time of 48 days. Low-dose rituximab was frequently used and equally as efficacious as standard dose. CONCLUSION: Immunosuppression with combination therapy, notably rituximab, appears to be non-inferior and has a favourable side effect profile.

Comparison of bypassing agents in patients on emicizumab using global hemostasis assays.

INTRODUCTION: Emicizumab is a humanized bispecific monoclonal antibody licensed for patients with severe haemophilia A with and without inhibitors. Management of breakthrough bleeding in patients with inhibitors on emicizumab involves episodic treatment with bypassing agents (BPA), activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) or recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa). Thrombotic events and thrombotic microangiopathy were reported when patients on emicizumab received concomitant aPCC at relatively high doses yet such events were not reported with rFVIIa. We studied the effect of spiking various concentrations of BPA on plasma taken from patients on emicizumab. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eleven patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors who are on emicizumab were recruited to participate. Blood samples drawn from patients were spiked in vitro with varying concentrations of aPCC and rFVIIa. All samples were tested utilizing global haemostasis assays, thromboelastography and thrombin generation assay. RESULTS: Thrombin generation increased with higher concentrations of spiked BPA with a normalized endogenous thrombin potential at a concentration of 0.05 IU/ml and 4 mcg/ml for aPCC and rFVIIa, respectively. Concentrations of aPCC in the range of licensed dosing led to excessive thrombin generation. Thromboelastography was not sufficiently sensitive. CONCLUSION: Due to the known thrombotic complications when emicizumab is used in conjunction with aPCC, there has been a large-scale abandonment of the use of aPCC in patients on emicizumab. However, it is possible that aPCC can be used safely with emicizumab albeit with lower doses than are typically prescribed. It would be important to test this hypothesis in a clinical study.

Concomitant use of bypassing agents with emicizumab for people with haemophilia A and inhibitors undergoing surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery in people with haemophilia and factor VIII inhibitors is typically managed with perioperative administration of haemostatic agents to prevent or control the occurrence of bleeding events. Practical experience of surgery in patients with inhibitors who are receiving treatment with emicizumab is growing; however, the novelty of the situation means that standardised guidelines are lacking with regard to the concomitant administration of haemostatic agents, including dose and laboratory monitoring. AIM: To review approaches to haemostatic management during major and minor invasive procedures in patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors, and to provide recommendations for controlling bleeding events. METHODS: A search was conducted, limited to the past 4 years (January 2016-April 2020), pertaining to published evidence of surgery for patients receiving emicizumab. Publications identified from the search were manually reviewed to determine studies and case reports relevant for inclusion. RESULTS: Identified literature and practical experience of the authors were used to build a consensus of practical recommendations for the concomitant administration of haemostatic agents during the perioperative period for elective surgery in patients with inhibitors who are receiving emicizumab. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base indicates that surgery can be successfully performed in patients with inhibitors who are receiving emicizumab and that bypassing agents can be used concomitantly. Data from prospective studies are required to further support recommendations for haemostatic management of surgery in patients receiving emicizumab.

Optimizing the management of patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors in the era of emicizumab: Recommendations from a German expert panel.

Standard treatment of haemophilia A is based on replacing the missing coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) to treat and prevent bleeding episodes. The most challenging complication of FVIII therapy is the development of neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) that can render treatment ineffective. Eradication of the inhibitor through immune tolerance induction (ITI) remains the most effective strategy for managing these patients. Bypassing agents can be used to help restore haemostasis in inhibitor patients. Several novel agents have recently been developed, such as the FVIII mimetic agent emicizumab, which has been effective in reducing the annualized bleeding rate in haemophilia A patients with inhibitors. When coadministered with repetitive high doses of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (ie >100 U/kg/d for ≥24 hours), emicizumab was associated with thrombotic microangiopathy and thrombosis events. As a consequence the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation (UKHCDO) issued the first guidance on the treatment of bleeding episodes in patients receiving emicizumab. To build on and extend this work, a panel of German haemophilia specialists met to discuss the UK guidance, review current evidence and provide additional guidance for German healthcare professionals on how to optimize the management of patients with haemophilia A receiving emicizumab. Recommendations are provided on the use of bypassing and other agents to manage breakthrough bleeding, ITI in the emicizumab era, haemostatic support during surgery and issues relating to laboratory monitoring.

Cost-effectiveness of emicizumab vs bypassing agents in the prevention of bleeding episodes in haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors in France.

INTRODUCTION: The development of an anti-FVIII inhibitor is the most serious complication of haemophilia A occurring in up to 30% of severe haemophilic patients. The current management of haemophilia A with inhibitor uses bypassing agents (BPA) and represents a significant therapeutic burden together with a limited adherence to prophylactic treatment. Emicizumab is the first monoclonal antibody developed in haemophilia A approved for the prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with anti-FVIII inhibitor. AIM: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of emicizumab versus BPAs. METHODS: A Markov model was developed over a five-year time horizon to estimate the comparative costs and benefits of the different therapeutic approaches in this rare disease. Model inputs were clinical, including annual bleeding rate and quality of life, and economical including mainly costs of prophylaxis, bleeds and adverse events. RESULTS: Emicizumab treatment is dominant, ie lest costly and more effective, in the base-case analysis saving 234 191 € for a gain of 0.88 QALY. This is confirmed by both the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The main limit of the study remains the absence of long-term clinical data allowing to relate treatment consumption to clinical benefit, especially in the progression of haemophilic arthropathy. CONCLUSION: Our results show that emicizumab is a cost-effective treatment allowing to consider an easy to implement prophylactic treatment for haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors.

Thrombin generation in plasma of patients with haemophilia A and B with inhibitors: Effects of bypassing agents and antithrombin reduction.

Antithrombin (AT) reduction has been shown to improve thrombin generation (TG) in haemophilia with or without inhibitors. As treatment with bypassing agents (BPAs) may be required in patients with breakthrough bleeding while receiving AT-lowering therapy, we assessed TG in platelet-poor plasma samples from haemophilia patients in the presence of BPA (recombinant activated factor VII [rFVIIa; 1.25 or 2.5 µg mL-1] or activated prothrombin complex concentrate [aPCC; 0.5 or 1 U mL-1]) and AT reduction (anti-AT antibody). Mean ± SEM baseline peak thrombin height was 19.9 ± 4.3 nM in plasma from haemophilia patients (n = 12) and 230.5 ± 9.8 nM in healthy males (n = 24). Reduced AT improved mean peak thrombin height in haemophilia patient plasma to 75.4 ± 17.4 nM. Spiking of 90% AT-reduced haemophilia patient plasma with 2.5 µg mL-1 rFVIIa or 1 U mL-1 aPCC increased the mean peak thrombin height to 82.5 ± 12 nM and 134.8 ± 18.7 nM, respectively. Peak thrombin levels did not exceed the range for healthy volunteers when plasma samples from haemophilia patients with in vitro AT reduction were treated with BPAs, suggesting the potential use of BPAs in conjunction with AT reduction. Further clinical investigations are needed to confirm the safety of this approach.

Treatment preferences in people with haemophilia A or caregivers of people with haemophilia A: A discrete choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for people with haemophilia A (PwHA) is regular prophylactic therapy with Factor VIII. However, very little is known about the treatment preferences of PwHA with and without inhibitors, or their caregivers, when presented with the choice between intravenous and subcutaneous prophylactic treatments with different modes of action, side effect risk and frequency of administration. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment to assess the preferences of PwHA or their caregivers. The survey was conducted in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: There were 56 respondents. The majority of PwHA had hereditary HA (78%) rather than spontaneous HA (22%). Most PwHA were diagnosed when they were under 12 months old (65%). The model identified two segments based on treatment preferences. There is heterogeneity between PwHA in their treatment preferences. People with and without inhibitors prefer to receive treatment via a subcutaneous injection compared to an intravenous infusion. However, for PwHA, efficacy is key; they value a reduction in the annual bleed rate. For those without inhibitors, this also includes a reduction in the risk of developing inhibitors. The side effect risk, administration risk and storage requirements were prioritised differently in each segment. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study may inform decisions about the value of existing and new treatments for PwHA.

Immune tolerance induction in paediatric patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors receiving emicizumab prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: The formation of neutralizing antifactor VIII (fVIII) antibodies, called inhibitors, is the most common complication in modern haemophilia A care. Novel non-factor replacement therapies, such as emicizumab, have sought to address the limitations of bypassing agents for bleeding management in patients with inhibitors. However, immune tolerance induction (ITI) remains the primary method for eradicating inhibitors and restoring the hemostatic response to fVIII. AIM: The aim of this study was to review a case series of paediatric patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors who have received ITI for inhibitor eradication concomitantly with emicizumab prophylaxis for bleeding prevention. METHODS: Single institution retrospective chart review of paediatric patients with severe haemophilia A receiving ITI and emicizumab. RESULTS: Seven patients were included in this cohort. Six patients used three different recombinant fVIII products at 100 IU/kg three times per week, and one patient used a plasma-derived fVIII product at an initial dose of 50 IU/kg three times per week. Three patients achieved a negative inhibitor titre <0.6 Chromogenic Bethesda Units per mL (CBU/mL), and two patients achieved a normal fVIII recovery ≥66%. There were nine bleeding events in four patients, but no thrombotic events. All patients remained on ITI and emicizumab. CONCLUSION: Immune tolerance induction while on emicizumab prophylaxis is a feasible approach in paediatric haemophilia A patients with inhibitors. This is the first report of the concomitant use of ITI in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis described as the 'Atlanta Protocol'.

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

INTRODUCTION: As 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. AIM: The 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 CONCLUSIONS: Despite 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.

Prophylactic bypassing agent use before and during immune tolerance induction in patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors to FVIII.

The development of high-titre inhibitory antibodies (inhibitors) against factor VIII (FVIII) remains a challenge in the management of patients with haemophilia A (HA). Patients with high-titre inhibitors are more likely to experience uncontrolled bleeding, physical disability from chronic arthropathy and premature death compared with those without this complication. Immune tolerance induction (ITI), utilizing repeated infusions of FVIII, is an effective therapeutic approach to eliminating inhibitory antibodies. This strategy can eradicate FVIII inhibitors, so that FVIII-specific tolerance is induced. However, patients undergoing ITI are still vulnerable to the development of serious and/or repeated bleeding events. The efficacy of bypassing agents in preventing bleeding episodes has been widely proven in patients with HA and inhibitors to FVIII. Evidence suggests that reducing bleeding during ITI can also shorten the time to tolerance. There are concerns with the use of bypassing agents, including the cost of treatment, short half-life, management of non-responders and the risk of thrombosis. Despite these concerns, and the still limited evidence from prospective studies and consensus reports, the use of prophylaxis with bypassing agents during ITI has been gaining support. This review presents a rationale and current data supporting the use of prophylactic bypassing agents as effective and safe therapies to reduce the incidence of joint bleeding due to inhibitors and improve quality of life in patients with HA undergoing ITI.

Management of acquired hemophilia A: Review of current evidence.

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a rare acquired bleeding disorder caused by autoantibodies against autologous factor VIII (FVIII). It is a disease that most commonly affects the elderly, but it has been described in children and during the post-partum period. It is idiopathic in 50% of cases and is associated with autoimmune disease, malignancy, pregnancy, infection or certain medications in the other 50%. The diagnosis should be suspected in patients with an isolated prolonged aPPT without previous personal or familial bleeding history. Treating the bleeding and eradication of the inhibitor is the mainstay of treatment. The first line of treatment for acute bleeding is the use of bypassing agents. The most commonly used method for eradicating the inhibitor is immunosuppression, namely corticosteroids alone or in combination with cyclophosphamide. This review summarises current knowledge and reviews management options and guidelines.

Recombinant porcine factor VIII for high-risk surgery in paediatric congenital haemophilia A with high-titre inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: High-titre factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors complicate peri-operative haemostasis. Recombinant porcine FVIII (r-pFVIII) may provide an alternative haemostatic agent for high-risk procedures and allow FVIII activity monitoring. AIM: Devise an effective haemostatic plan for repair of a progressively symptomatic aortic coarctation in a 5-year-old male with immune tolerance induction (ITI) refractory high-titre FVIII inhibitors. METHODS: Preprocedure human FVIII inhibitor titre was 58 Bethesda Units mL-1 (BU) and cross-reacted to neutralize porcine FVIII at 30 BU. Daily ITI with plasma-derived FVIII concentrate was supplemented with anti-B-cell and anti-plasma cell immunotherapy to reduce FVIII inhibitor titres. Potential haemostatic agents were evaluated in comparative ex vivo thrombin generation assays (TGA). RESULTS: Four weeks after immunosuppression, human and porcine inhibitor titres declined to 16 and 2 BU respectively. TGA with r-pFVIII was less robust than with activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC); however, r-pFVIII was selected for cardiac surgery to secure the ability to assay FVIII levels throughout this high-bleeding risk procedure. Haemostasis with r-pFVIII was excellent; initial trough FVIII activity levels ranged from 0.81-1.17 IU mL-1 . On postoperative day 3, peak and trough levels markedly declined suggesting a rising porcine inhibitor titre. Postprocedure prophylaxis was transitioned to aPCC, informed by TGA. CONCLUSIONS: R-pFVIII provided effective peri-procedural haemostasis with no adverse events. Rapid neutralization of r-pFVIII after the first 60 hours, despite intensive immune suppression, accentuates the importance of careful monitoring. Use of TGA can support bypassing agent selection for convalescence. The comparative cost of r-pFVIII may limit its use to high morbidity clinical scenarios.

Safety and dose-dependency of eptacog beta (activated) in a dose escalation study of non-bleeding congenital haemophilia A or B patients, with or without inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Varying initial doses of activated eptacog beta (recombinant human FVIIa, rhFVIIa) may provide therapeutic options when treating bleeding in patients with congenital haemophilia who have developed inhibitory antibodies to factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX). This study evaluated escalated doses of a new rhFVIIa product as a prelude to selecting the doses for clinical efficacy evaluation in haemophilia patients. AIM: To assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and laboratory pharmacodynamics of 3 doses of rhFVIIa in non-bleeding patients with congenital haemophilia A or B with or without inhibitors. METHODS: Adult male patients (18-75 years old) with congenital haemophilia A or B (with or without inhibitors) received infusions of rhFVIIa at doses of 25, 75 or 225 µg/kg body weight. Ten patients were treated at each dose level, and each patient received 2 different dose levels. Descriptive methods were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Administration of rhFVIIa at all doses was well tolerated. Pharmacokinetic analyses showed that peak FVIIa plasma levels (Cmax ) were approximately proportional to dose and correlated well with peak thrombin generation. Total AUC0-inf also was approximately dose proportional. Clot formation and duration correlated with FVIIa activity. Repeat doses did not produce an immunological response. CONCLUSION: In the first dose-escalation study of rhFVIIa to support product registration, eptacog beta at doses of 25, 75, and 225 µg/kg was pharmacodynamically active and well tolerated in non-bleeding patients with congenital haemophilia A or B.

A phase III clinical trial of a mixture agent of plasma-derived factor VIIa and factor X (MC710) in haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: MC710, a 1:10 protein weight ratio mixture of plasma-derived activated factor VII (FVIIa) and factor X (FX), is a novel bypassing agent for haemostasis in haemophilia patients with inhibitors. We evaluated the haemostatic efficacy and safety of one to two administrations of MC710 in 21 joint, muscle, and subcutaneous bleeding episodes in 14 male patients, in a multi-centre, open-label, non-randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Subjects were intravenously administered one or two doses of 60 or 120 µg kg-1 MC710 (as FVIIa) once or twice (to a maximum of 180 µg kg-1 ) over up to five bleeding episodes per subject. The haemostatic efficacy of MC710 was determined for each episode by investigator evaluation, using changes in visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain relief, and/or knee joint or muscle circumference for swelling reduction, and range of motion (ROM) for improvement of joint mobility. RESULTS: In 21 treatments for bleeding episodes, 19 were rated "excellent" or "effective" 8 h after the last treatment. VAS significantly decreased over time, and ROM significantly improved over time compared with the values before treatment. One mild adverse reaction, decreased blood potassium, and two serious adverse events, both knee joint bleeding, were observed within 1 week after first administration, with no significant effect on safety. Furthermore, diagnostic markers did not show any signs of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). CONCLUSION: These results show that MC710 has sufficient haemostatic efficacy and safety, and can be used as a potential bypassing agent to control bleeding in haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

Health-related quality of life assessment in haemophilia patients on prophylaxis therapy: a systematic review of results from prospective clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylaxis is effective in reducing the number of bleeding episodes in patients with severe or moderately severe haemophilia A and B, including those with inhibitors. However, data, predominantly from observational studies, suggest more equivocal effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). AIM: To examine the impact of prophylaxis on HRQoL from prospective clinical trials. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of prophylaxis with factor VIII, FIX or bypassing agents. Trials assessing HRQoL via validated instruments were selected and summarized. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (haemophilia A [n = 8]; haemophilia B [n = 2]; inhibitors [n = 3]) met all inclusion criteria. HRQoL instruments included the EQ-5D, SF-36, Haem-QoL-A, Haem-A-QoL, Haemo-QoL and CHO-KLAT. Improvements in HRQoL following prophylaxis were observed with the EQ-VAS, SF-36 and haemophilia-specific instruments in adult patients and were associated with reduced pain, fewer restrictions in physical activities and better general health. Prophylaxis led to statistically significant or clinically meaningful HRQoL improvement in six trials and non-significant improvement in four trials; two trials found no improvement and one reported no data. Despite study differences, consistent trends suggested that patients previously treated solely on-demand and those who experienced marked reductions in the frequency of bleeding with prophylaxis had a greater improvement in HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Contrary to findings of observational studies, the results from the majority of prospective trials using validated instruments showed positive trends for improved HRQoL with prophylaxis in adults.

Factor VIII alloantibody inhibitors: cost analysis of immune tolerance induction vs. prophylaxis and on-demand with bypass treatment.

Development of inhibitors (alloantibodies to exogenous factor VIII) is the most significant treatment complication in patients with haemophilia A. The only proven way to eradicate inhibitors is through immune tolerance induction (ITI), while bypassing agents are typically employed to treat or prevent bleeds in patients with high titre inhibitors. Costs of these approaches have not been well studied. The aim of this study was to compare lifetime costs of treating patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors using on-demand or prophylaxis treatment with bypassing agents and ITI. A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the treatment costs and outcomes. Quantitation of the reduction in bleeding events for patients on prophylaxis and after eradication of inhibitors when on ITI and relapse of inhibitors was derived from published studies. Costs were obtained from standard US costing sources and are reported in 2014 US dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted 3% per annum. Lifetime costs of treating patients with inhibitors are lower for ITI vs. on-demand or prophylaxis. Patients are also projected to live longer, have greater quality-adjusted life-years, and have fewer bleeding events than patients treated on-demand. Treating patients via ITI to eradicate inhibitors may result in lower lifetime costs and greater life-years and quality-adjusted life-years than treating with bypassing agents.

Strategies for inhibitor treatment and costs in the short and long term: a critical evaluation of recent clinical studies.

One important complication of patients with severe haemophilia A is the formation of inhibitory antibodies to factor VIII (FVIII). Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the treatment of choice for patients with inhibitors, but this approach is successful in about 60% of patients. Treatment of acute bleeding in patients with inhibitors is one of the greatest challenges in haemophilia management and is costly. Bypassing agents are the mainstay of treatment in these patients. The aims of this study were to review the most recent publications concerning the costs of inhibitor treatment. We conducted a literature review using PubMed which yielded 63 papers analysing the costs of inhibitor management of which 12 were suitable for our study. Four of eight studies supported the use of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) with lower costs, but the remaining four studies showed that recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) had a lower average treatment cost. Of four ITI studies, two supported lifelong cost-effectiveness of ITI vs. bypassing agents and the remaining two papers showed a high cost of inhibitor treatment. Dosages, time between onset of bleeding and treatment, patient characteristics and the price of drugs are some of the important issues that should be considered for further studies.

Acquired haemophilia: an overview for clinical practice.

Acquired haemophilia is a potentially life-threatening bleeding disorder caused by the development of autoantibodies against coagulation factors, most commonly against factor (F) VIII (acquired haemophilia A; AHA). In around half of patients, an underlying disorder is associated with AHA; the remaining cases are idiopathic. Typically, the disorder presents with bleeding, ranging from mild to life- and limb-threatening, in patients with no personal or family bleeding history. Diagnosis involves an isolated prolongation of the activated partial thromboplastin time, without correction in mixing studies, low FVIII activity levels and evidence of a FVIII inhibitor. As AHA is rare, a lack of familiarity of the condition may result in delayed diagnosis, and prompt haemostatic control is required to reduce morbidity and mortality. Bypassing agents (recombinant activated factor VII or activated prothrombin complex concentrates) can be used to control acute bleeding, and immunosuppression is necessary to eradicate the inhibitor. As clinical trials in this rare and heterogeneous disease are difficult, current evidence comes from observational studies, including registries. This review will focus on the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of AHA and summarise how understanding of this complex condition has increased based on recent registry data.