Haemophilia最新文献

Introduction: Clinical trials and real-world evidence have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of rVIII-SingleChain in previously treated patients with haemophilia A.

Aim: To investigate the safety and efficacy of rVIII-SingleChain in previously untreated patients (PUPs).

Methods: In an open-label, phase 3, extension study, PUPs with severe haemophilia A (FVIII <1%) received rVIII-SingleChain prophylactically or on-demand. The primary endpoints were incidence of high-titre (HT) inhibitor formation to FVIII, treatment success for major bleeding episodes and annualised spontaneous bleeding rate (AsBR).

Results: Twenty-four PUPs (median age 1 year [range 0-5]) were treated with rVIII-SingleChain; median time on study was 35.0 months (range 2.4-54.0). Overall, six PUPs developed a HT inhibitor (>5 BU/mL) and six developed a low-titre (LT) inhibitor (≤5 BU/mL). The median number of exposure days at inhibitor development was 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-14.0). Of 11 inhibitor-positive PUPs (five HT, six LT) who continued rVIII-SingleChain therapy, nine (81.8%; three HT, six LT) achieved inhibitor eradication (<0.6 BU/mL). Median time to eradication was 14.3 weeks (IQR 9.8-53.8). Seventeen treatment-emergent adverse events in 12 PUPs (50.0%) were related to rVIII-SingleChain, mainly inhibitor development (14/17 events). Treatment was successful (haemostatic efficacy rated excellent or good) for 290/315 bleeding events (92.1%). During prophylactic therapy, inhibitor-negative PUPs had a median (IQR) AsBR of 0.52 (0.00-4.99) and annualised bleeding rate of 1.98 (0.77-11.23).

Conclusion: RVIII-SingleChain demonstrated a satisfactory benefit:risk profile in PUPs, with a high treatment success rate and a low AsBR during prophylaxis, and was effective at eradicating inhibitors.

Introduction: Gene editing therapies offer the possibility of substantial improvement in treatment and quality of life for people with haemophilia (PWH) in a landscape of dynamic therapeutic advancement. Developing a common and understandable language to discuss gene editing will be essential to ensure these treatments can be deployed in a safe and effective manner with fully informed and shared decision-making between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and PWH. A lexicon explaining and clarifying key concepts is one potential tool to address these aims. Here we evaluate how a gene editing lexicon could be deployed to maximise impact and improve patient outcomes.

Aim: To operationalise the gene editing lexicon for successful adoption by the haemophilia community.

Methods: Through an innovative, iterative process, representatives from the haemophilia community, including multidisciplinary HCPs, PWH, and caregivers, with support from language strategy experts, developed a gene editing lexicon and evaluated operational aspects for real-world adoption of this resource.

Results: A gene editing lexicon was developed, including infographics illustrating key concepts. Infographics were adapted from the lexicon to further clarify and communicate these concepts. Infographics were found to be a potentially vital tool for enhancing the practical use of the lexicon to promote shared decision-making and attain informed consent for gene editing therapies.

Conclusion: A gene editing lexicon shows promise for improving the understanding of gene editing for all stakeholders in the haemophilia community. Ensuring the lexicon remains up to date with current therapies and appropriate strategies for adoption such as infographics will enable this resource to have maximum impact.

Introduction: Infants with haemophilia, due to parental overprotection, have difficulty developing their full motor repertoire of typical gross motor development. It is of great clinical importance to evaluate the motor development of these infants with a standardized assessment tool.

Aim: To study the gross motor development in infants with haemophilia, using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and compare it with full-term (FT) and preterm infants (PT).

Methods: Fifteen FT infants with severe or moderate haemophilia A and B were assessed with the AIMS (Group D). The scale is already standardized in FT Greek infants (Group A). Two groups of PT infants were also included, with gestational age >32 weeks and ≤32 weeks, Groups B and C, respectively. The mean Z-scores were tested with the ANOVA procedure, followed by post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction.

Results: The four groups had significantly different mean Z-scores. Infants in Group A had a mean Z-score of 0 ± 1. Infants in Group B lagged significantly behind by one standard deviation. Preterm infants in Group C had a mean Z-score significantly lower than Group B. Infants in Group D had a mean Z-score significantly lower than Group C.

Conclusions: Motor development in infants with haemophilia significantly lags behind both FT and PT infants. Differences in AIMS scores could be attributed to the reduction of movement activity, since infants with haemophilia are often deprived of certain positions, being held and carried in the parents' arms, as well as from free play time on the floor.

Background: Arthroplasty is the standard treatment for end-stage haemophilic knee arthritis; however, the choice between single knee arthroplasty (SKA) and bilateral knee arthroplasty (BKA) in a single operation remains controversial due to the risks specific to haemophiliacs.

Methods: Two independent researchers conducted searches across CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, with the last search performed on 15 October 2024. Study results include joint function, complication and various cost. Literature quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcomes were evaluated with fixed-effects or random-effects models, while heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed.

Results: Nine studies involving 309 haemophilia patients were included, with 166 in SKA group and 143 in BKA group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the SKA and BKA groups in range of motion (95% CI: -0.22 [-3.57, 3.13], p = 0.90), Hospital for Special Surgery score (95% CI: -2.13 [-4.89, 0.64], p = 0.13), flexion degree (95% CI: -2.38 [-7.22, 2.46], p = 0.33), cost (95% CI: -0.24 [-0.94, 0.45], p = 0.49), complication rate (95% CI: 1.31 [-0.79, 2.17], p = 0.29), hospital stay (95% CI: 0.25 [-2.06, 2.57], p = 0.83), and coagulation factor usage (p = 0.49). However, The SKA group outperformed the BKA group in terms of operative time, postoperative drainage, and transfusion volume (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our study indicates that, apart from differences in operative time, transfusion volume, and blood loss, SKA and BKA show no significant differences in postoperative joint function, complication rates, or costs.

Background: Acquired haemophilia A (AHA) is an acquired bleeding disorder resulting from autoantibodies against Factor VIII (FVIII). Previous studies have reported differences in FVIII inhibitor kinetics (type I or type II) in AHA compared to severe haemophilia A.

Aim: To characterise inhibitor kinetics in AHA and evaluate the proportions displaying type I, II or indeterminate kinetics.

Methods: Single-centre retrospective study of inhibitor kinetics in adults with AHA. Type I kinetics were defined as linear FVIII inhibition with ≥ 97% FVIII inactivation. Type II kinetics were defined as non-linear kinetics and inability to completely neutralise FVIII. Inhibitor titres were calculated using two methods outlined by the International Council for Standardisation in Haematology.

Results: Baseline samples from 34 patients were included. Fifteen samples (44.1%) exhibited type I kinetics, 16 samples (47.1%) exhibited type II kinetics and 3 (8.8%) were indeterminate. Plateau mean residual FVIII:C was higher for inhibitors displaying type II compared to type I kinetics (18.6 vs. 2.9 IU/dL, p < 0.0001). Non-linear regression using a dose-response curve without categorisation for kinetics type yielded a poor fit (R² = 38%), which improved with refitting using categories of type I or II kinetics that explained 87% and 85% of the variability. The median difference in inhibitor titre between the two reporting methods was 5% and 15% in the type I and II kinetics groups, respectively.

Conclusion: FVIII autoantibodies demonstrate either type I or type II kinetics. Greater discrepancy in reported inhibitor titres depending on the method used is seen for inhibitors with type II kinetics.