Efficacy and safety of prophylaxis with emicizumab in hemophilia A: A study of 13 patients. / Eficacia y seguridad de la profilaxis con emicizumab en la hemofilia A: estudio de 13 pacientes.

INTRODUCTION: Emicizumab is the first non-replacement therapy for prophylaxis in severe hemophilia A. AIMS: The principal aim of this study is to describe the results of our patients in prophylaxis with emicizumab, according to the usual clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Follow-up of 13 patients from the start of prophylaxis, recording of bleeding, surgeries, adverse reactions and the need or not for factor therapy. Plasma levels were measured at follow-up visits, the technique was coagulative in one stage, modified by 1:20 dilution. RESULTS: Median plasma levels were 52.2mg [30.7-71.9]. Prophylaxis was safe and effective; only one spontaneous haemorrhage was recorded over time and no treatment was required. There were no thromboembolic events or serious hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions. The incidence of injection site reactions was 8%. Perioperative management in minor interventions was carried out without adjuvant factorial therapy, in 2 major surgeries a dose of plasmatic FVIII concentrate was required in the patient with hemophilia A without inhibitor and FVII in the patient with inhibitor, and it was sufficient to stop the bleeding. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated emicizumab pharmacokinetics and its half life ensure optimal levels with prophylaxis treatment at doses established in the technical data sheet.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonist switch in adult primary immune thrombocytopenia patients: A retrospective collaborative survey involving 4 Spanish centres.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons for and result of thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RA) switching in adult immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) patients of 4 Spanish centres. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all patients who received sequential treatment with both TPO-RA between 2010 and 2015 recording clinical and biological parameters. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were included; 17 received first romiplostim and 9 received first eltrombopag. Reasons for switching were inefficacy (n = 10), patient preference (n = 8), side effects (n = 5) and excessive platelet count fluctuation (n = 3). When the switch was due to inefficacy, 100% of patients who received romiplostim first and 66% who received eltrombopag first responded to the second drug. It is significant that none of the patients who received romiplostim first reached the maximum recommended dose before switching. When the change was due to patient preference or because of side effects, 100% of the patients responded to both TPO-RA. Three patients changed from romiplostim to eltrombopag due to platelet count fluctuation; one did not respond and the fluctuation persisted in the remaining 2 patients. We also found 4 sustained remissions after administering the second TPO-RA, 2 of these with inefficacy of the first drug. CONCLUSION: TPO-RA switching is a feasible strategy in different scenarios with high probability of success.