Management of patients with hereditary angioedema in Germany: comparison with other countries in the Icatibant Outcome Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS; NCT01034969) is a Shire-sponsored, international, observational study monitoring the safety and effectiveness of icatibant, a bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of adults with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (HAE-C1-INH). OBJECTIVE: To report IOS data comparing demographic and icatibant treatment outcomes in patients with HAE-C1-INH from Germany to HAE-C1-INH patients from 11 other IOS countries. METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective, comparative analysis of data from 685 IOS patients with HAE-C1-INH from seven centres in Germany (n = 93) vs. centres from Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (n = 592, July 2009-January 2017). Icatibant treatment outcomes were retrieved from patients with complete attack outcome data for time to treatment, time to resolution and attack duration (160 attacks in 42 German patients and 1442 attacks in 251 patients from other IOS countries). RESULTS: German patients reported significantly fewer severe/very severe attacks (38.7% vs. 57.5%, respectively; P < 0.001). The proportion of attacks treated with a single icatibant injection was significantly higher in German patients (97.1% vs. 91.6%, P = 0.0003). The median time to treatment (0.0 h vs. 1.5 h), time to resolution (3.0 h vs. 7.0 h) and attack duration (4.3 h vs. 10.5 h) in German patients vs. other IOS countries were all significantly shorter (all P < 0.0001). No meaningful differences were identified between patients from Germany and other countries with regard to sex, median age at enrolment, median age at symptom onset and median age at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: German IOS patients share similar demographic characteristics to patients from other IOS countries yet treat their attacks with icatibant significantly earlier and have markedly fewer severe or very severe attacks. Factors including regional access to and availability of icatibant may drive these outcomes and warrant further investigation.

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema-The 2017 revision and update.

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease. Early diagnosis and appropriate therapy are essential. This update and revision of the global guideline for HAE provides up-to-date consensus recommendations for the management of HAE. In the development of this update and revision of the guideline, an international expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and developed 20 recommendations that were discussed, finalized and consented during the guideline consensus conference in June 2016 in Vienna. The final version of this update and revision of the guideline incorporates the contributions of a board of expert reviewers and the endorsing societies. The goal of this guideline update and revision is to provide clinicians and their patients with guidance that will assist them in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1-inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1-inhibitor (type 2). The key clinical questions covered by these recommendations are: (1) How should HAE-1/2 be defined and classified?, (2) How should HAE-1/2 be diagnosed?, (3) Should HAE-1/2 patients receive prophylactic and/or on-demand treatment and what treatment options should be used?, (4) Should HAE-1/2 management be different for special HAE-1/2 patient groups such as pregnant/lactating women or children?, and (5) Should HAE-1/2 management incorporate self-administration of therapies and patient support measures?

International consensus on the diagnosis and management of pediatric patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency.

BACKGROUND: The consensus documents published to date on hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) have focused on adult patients. Many of the previous recommendations have not been adapted to pediatric patients. We intended to produce consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and management of pediatric patients with C1-INH-HAE. METHODS: During an expert panel meeting that took place during the 9th C1 Inhibitor Deficiency Workshop in Budapest, 2015 (www.haenet.hu), pediatric data were presented and discussed and a consensus was developed by voting. RESULTS: The symptoms of C1-INH-HAE often present in childhood. Differential diagnosis can be difficult as abdominal pain is common in pediatric C1-INH-HAE, but also commonly occurs in the general pediatric population. The early onset of symptoms may predict a more severe subsequent course of the disease. Before the age of 1 year, C1-INH levels may be lower than in adults; therefore, it is advisable to confirm the diagnosis after the age of one year. All neonates/infants with an affected C1-INH-HAE family member should be screened for C1-INH deficiency. Pediatric patients should always carry a C1-INH-HAE information card and medicine for emergency use. The regulatory approval status of the drugs for prophylaxis and for acute treatment is different in each country. Plasma-derived C1-INH, recombinant C1-INH, and ecallantide are the only agents licensed for the acute treatment of pediatric patients. Clinical trials are underway with additional drugs. It is recommended to follow up patients in an HAE comprehensive care center. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric-focused international consensus for the diagnosis and management of C1-INH-HAE patients was created.

Phase II study results of a replacement therapy for hereditary angioedema with subcutaneous C1-inhibitor concentrate.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) due to C1 inhibitor deficiency manifests as recurrent swelling attacks that can be disabling and sometimes fatal. Long-term prophylaxis with twice-weekly intravenous injections of plasma-derived C1-inhibitor (pdC1-INH) has been established as an effective treatment. Subcutaneous (SC) administration of pdC1-INH has not been studied in patients with HAE. METHODS: This open-label, dose-ranging, crossover study (COMPACT Phase II) was conducted in 18 patients with type I or II HAE who received two of twice-weekly 1500, 3000, or 6000 IU SC doses of highly concentrated volume-reduced CSL830 for 4 weeks each. The mean trough plasma levels of C1-INH functional activity, C1-INH and C4 antigen levels during Week 4, and overall safety and tolerability were evaluated. The primary outcome was model-derived steady-state trough C1-INH functional activity. RESULTS: After SC CSL830 administration, a dose-dependent increase in trough functional C1-INH activity was observed. C1-INH and C4 levels both increased. The two highest dose groups (3000 and 6000 IU) achieved constant C1-INH activity levels above 40% values, a threshold that was assumed to provide clinical protection against angioedema attacks. Compared with intravenous injection, pdC1-INH SC injection with CSL830 showed a lower peak-to-trough ratio and more consistent exposures. All doses were well tolerated. Mild-to-moderate local site reactions were noted with pain and swelling being the most common adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous volume-reduced CSL830 was well tolerated and led to a dose-dependent increase in physiologically relevant functional C1-INH plasma levels. A clinical outcome study of SC CSL830 in patients with HAE warrants further investigation.

Risk of angioedema following invasive or surgical procedures in HAE type I and II--the natural history.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE), caused by deficiency in C1-inhibitor (C1-INH), leads to unpredictable edema of subcutaneous tissues with potentially fatal complications. As surgery can be a trigger for edema episodes, current guidelines recommend preoperative prophylaxis with C1-INH or attenuated androgens in patients with HAE undergoing surgery. However, the risk of an HAE attack in patients without prophylaxis has not been quantified. OBJECTIVES: This analysis examined rates of perioperative edema in patients with HAE not receiving prophylaxis. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of records of randomly selected patients with HAE type I or II treated at the Frankfurt Comprehensive Care Centre. These were examined for information about surgical procedures and the presence of perioperative angioedema. RESULTS: A total of 331 patients were included; 247 underwent 700 invasive procedures. Of these procedures, 335 were conducted in 144 patients who had not received prophylaxis at the time of surgery. Categories representing significant numbers of procedures were abdominal (n = 113), ENT (n = 71), and gynecological (n = 58) procedures. The rate of documented angioedema without prophylaxis across all procedures was 5.7%; in 24.8% of procedures, the presence of perioperative angioedema could not be excluded, leading to a maximum potential risk of 30.5%. Predictors of perioperative angioedema could not be identified. CONCLUSION: The risk of perioperative angioedema in patients with HAE type I or II without prophylaxis undergoing surgical procedures ranged from 5.7% to 30.5% (CI 3.5-35.7%). The unpredictability of HAE episodes supports current international treatment recommendations to consider short-term prophylaxis for all HAE patients undergoing surgery.

Review of recent guidelines and consensus statements on hereditary angioedema therapy with focus on self-administration.

Consensus meetings and the resulting recommendations shape treatment choices in rare diseases such as hereditary angioedema (HAE) because they combine the experience of prescribing physicians and the patients who are receiving therapy. Self-administration of HAE therapy was recognised as a potential treatment option in the first consensus publication in 2003. Recent studies have confirmed that self-administration of therapy resolves attacks quickly, safely and minimises burden of disease; however, the discovery of inconsistent treatment approaches is a concern and warrants investigation into the barriers that prevent adherence with current recommendations.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) in children and adolescents--a consensus on therapeutic strategies.

Hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor (C1 esterase inhibitor) deficiency (types I and II HAE-C1-INH) is a rare disease that usually presents during childhood or adolescence with intermittent episodes of potentially life-threatening angioedema. Diagnosis as early as possible is important to avoid ineffective therapies and to properly treat swelling attacks. At a consensus meeting in June 2011, pediatricians and dermatologists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland reviewed the currently available literature, including published international consensus recommendations for HAE therapy across all age groups. Published recommendations cannot be unconditionally adopted for pediatric patients in German-speaking countries given the current approval status of HAE drugs. This article provides an overview and discusses drugs available for HAE therapy, their approval status, and study results obtained in adult and pediatric patients. Recommendations for developing appropriate treatment strategies in the management of HAE in pediatric patients in German-speaking countries are provided.Conclusion Currently, plasma-derived C1 inhibitor concentrate is considered the best available option for the treatment of acute HAE-C1-INH attacks in pediatric patients in German-speaking countries, as well as for short-term and long-term prophylaxis.

Mutational spectrum of the C1INH (SERPING1) gene in patients with hereditary angioedema.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is an autosomal dominant disease that manifests as intermittent acute swellings of the skin and mucosal surfaces, which, in the gastrointestinal tract and larynx, may even be fatal. HAE results from functional deficiency of the C1 inhibitor (C1INH) protein, which plays a key role in the classical pathway of complement activation. C1INH is the sole inhibitor of the activated proteases C1r and C1s, and is the major regulator of activated coagulation Factor XII and plasma kallikrein, which limits the generation of the vasoactive peptide bradykinin. In this paper, we report on the genetic analysis of 173 families (including 326 members) with a clinical diagnosis of HAE. Direct sequencing, Southern blotting and quantitative PCR by the MLPA method were used to screen for mutations in C1INH (SERPING1). In 142 families (82.1%), a causative C1INH gene mutation could be identified. A total of 80 novel point mutations of C1INH not published previously were detected in 96 pedigrees (including 172 members). Our results corroborate C1INH (SERPING1) deficiency as a disease of extreme allelic heterogeneity with almost each individual family carrying their own mutation. Routine molecular genetic analysis is an effective way of confirming the clinical diagnosis and identifying mutation carriers early on before any clinical manifestation becomes apparent. It is, therefore, a valuable tool in prevention and adequate treatment of acute and life-threatening oedema.

Immune tolerance induction with mycophenolate-mofetil in two children with haemophilia B and inhibitor.

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) in haemophilia B patients with inhibitor should be carefully considered because of the relatively poor (25%) overall success rate and the high risk of complications. ITI in combination with an immunosuppressive treatment was started in two children with haemophilia B with factor IX (FIX) inhibitor. To avoid anaphylactic reactions and inhibitor boost, the FIX replacement therapy was stopped and patients received a treatment with recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa). After disappearance of FIX inhibitor, a combination of mycophenolate-mofetil (MMF), dexamethasone (DEXA) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and a high dose FIX replacement therapy was started. Immune tolerance could be induced in patient 2, whereas eradication of FIX inhibitor was incomplete in patient 1. Both patients benefited from the immune suppressive treatment and FIX replacement therapy was tolerated without any allergic complications. Neither development of a nephrotic syndrome nor a severe bleeding episode was observed. Strategies to induce tolerance in haemophilia B patients with inhibitors need to be explored in a systematic way. Given the low frequency of disease and even lower incidence of inhibitors, prospective randomized studies may not be possible. International registry-based retrospective and prospective data collection could play the key role in the study of the outcome variables in ITI for haemophilia B.

Retrochorionic hematoma in congenital afibrinogenemia: resolution with fibrinogen concentrate infusions.

Without treatment, pregnancies in patients with congenital afibrinogenemia terminate in miscarriage at 5-6 weeks of gestation. Animal model studies have suggested that implantation site bleeding contributes to miscarriage in afibrinogenemia; however, retrochorionic hematoma in human congenital afibrinogenemia has not been previously observed. A patient with congenital afibrinogenemia receiving fibrinogen prophylaxis developed a retrochorionic hematoma in the first trimester. With continuous intensified fibrinogen concentrate replacement the hematoma resolved over 6 weeks, and the patient delivered a healthy infant. Median fibrinogen levels in the first trimester were 48 mg/dL and in second and third trimester 44 mg/dL. Median fibrinogen levels under 60 mg/dL may be adequate to maintain pregnancy in patients with congenital afibrinogenemia, although it is possible that higher levels might reduce the risk of hemorrhagic events.

Epidemiology of inhibitors in haemophilia A.

One of the most serious complications of the treatment of haemophilia A is the development of inhibitors. Former studies mostly considered the prevalence of inhibitor development, thus underestimating its true risk. Prevalences ranged widely (7-18%) probably due to the populations studied and the study design. Recent prospective previously untreated patients (PUP) studies were more comparable because of similar study designs. Eight PUP studies regarding the incidence of factor VIII inhibitors were analyzed: The inhibitor incidences (Independent of severity of haemophilia) ranged from 18.4 to 28%. Evaluating only severe haemophiliacs (factor VIII < 2%) significantly higher incidences were found. After 9-36 exposure days (as medians inhibitor development occurred at 0.8-3.3 years of age (as medians).

Factor VIII inhibitors in patients with hemophilia A: epidemiology of inhibitor development and induction of immune tolerance for factor VIII.

Factor (F) VIII inhibitor development remains one of the most serious complications in the treatment of hemophilia A. Former and recent studies on inhibitor development revealed that patients with severe hemophilia A and positive inhibitor family history are at highest risk of developing an inhibitor. Comparison of recent inhibitor incidence studies on previously untreated patients indicate that the risk of inhibitor development under treatment with recombinant FVIII concentrates is comparable to the inhibitor incidence under FVIII substitution by plasma-derived concentrates. However, longer observation periods are necessary to draw final conclusions. Since inhibitor development may result in inefficacy of FVIII concentrates in the treatment of severe bleedings, the induction of immune tolerance (IT) is still of main concern. Various regimens to induce IT by application of FVIII concentrates have been conducted up to now. Success rate appears to be influenced by low to high responder status, number of exposure days before onset of treatment, and dosage of therapeutic regimen. Especially, discontinuation of IT therapy seems to be associated with failure of therapy. Taking into account available data on IT therapy, we recommend early onset of a high dosage regimen in high responder patients as soon as possible after inhibitor detection, as this is associated with higher success rate and shorter elimination time.