manuel carcao md, msc paediatric hematologist associate professor hospital for sick children...
Post on 17-Dec-2015
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Manuel Carcao MD, MScPaediatric Hematologist
Associate Professor Hospital for Sick Children
University of TorontoToronto, Canada
Prevention of Inhibitors in Hemophilia
How to reduce
inhibitors
Wish to thank the Organizers, the Lebanese Society of Haematology, the
WFH and Bayer for bringing me to Lebanon
Haemophilia at the start of 20th century
A terrible disease with no treatment
Tremendous Progress in Hemophilia Care during the 20th Century
Discovery of Cryoprecipitate
National and International Hemophilia Organizations
Recombinant factors
Hemophilia treatment centers
Virally inactivated safe factor concentrates
“Prophylaxis superior to ondemand therapy”
Discovery of the FVIII and FIX genes
Immune Tolerance Induction
Home Care
Where are we now in Haemophilia Care
• We have safe factor concentrates
But expensive and hence much of the world has little access to these products
Inhibitors continue to occur with no reduction in their incidence
Inhibitors•Antibodies formed against factor concentrates
•Inactivate / neutralize / inhibit the activity of factor
•→ Patients become refractory to conventional factor replacement → need expensive and less effective alternative bypassing agents
Light chainHeavy chain
EconomicClinical
Inhibitor development is a huge problem
Clinical More difficult to treat
bleeds ↑ susceptibility to
Life-threatening bleeds e.g. ICH
Worse joint disease Worse quality of life
Inhibitor development is a huge problem
Economic
Inhibitor development is a huge problem
Bypassing agents$$$
Immune tolerance therapy (to eradicate
inhibitors)$$$$$
Why Do Inhibitors Develop? Boy with Severe Haemophilia A
“Produces no FVIII”
Immune system does not see endogenous FVIII
No immune central
tolerance
Why Do Inhibitors Develop?
Receives exogenous FVIII
Boy with Severe Haemophilia A“Produces no FVIII”
Why Do Inhibitors Develop?
FVIII
Receives exogenous FVIII
Boy with Severe Haemophilia A“Produces no FVIII”
Inhibitors develop early in life (usually)
Median ≈11 Exposure Days; age 1.5 yrs
20-40% in severe
haemophilia A
NON-GENETICPOTENTIALLY MODIFIABLE
GENETIC NON-MODIFIABLE
Multifactorial Risk Factors for Inhibitor Development
GENETIC NON-MODIFIABLE
• Type of Hemophilia: A >>>B• Hemophilia Severity:
Severe (20-40%) > Moderate (5-10%) >Mild (1-5%)• Mutation: Null (25-50%); non-null (<10%)• Ethnicity: 2X higher in African ancestry• Family History of an inhibitor: risk by 2-3X• Inherited polymorphisms for immune-modulating
genes
NON-GENETIC POTENTIALLY MODIFIABLE
• Choice of Factor concentrate: • Unclear if a risk factor
• Intense exposure to factor early on in life: • ↑ risk (2-3X)
• Early start of Prophylaxis: • ↓ risk by 40-60%
1) Ben 2) Nathan
A Case of 2 brothers with
severe hemophilia A
Born 200713 mo of age: Diagnosed
I-22 inversion (SHA)
13 mo 21 mo: On demand (6
Exposures to rFVIII for soft
tissue bleeds)
21 mo of age: Tongue bleed
(5 Consecutive days)
2 wks later: Inhibitor (9 BU)
1) Ben
Intense exposure
Born 200713 mo of age: Diagnosed
I-22 inversion (SHA)
13 mo 21 mo: On demand (6
Exposures to rFVIII for soft
tissue bleeds)
21 mo of age: Tongue bleed
(5 Consecutive days)
2 wks later: Inhibitor (9 BU)
1) Ben
Intense exposure
Bypassing therapy&
ITT X 1.5 yrs&
Port
Born 2009
Diagnosed at birth
Age 8 mo: no exposures
Parents asked - “Is there
anything that we can do to try
to reduce Nathan’s chances of
developing an inhibitor?”
2) Nathan
Interventions to reduce inhibitors
Which factor to use?
How can we expose him in the
least immunogenic way?
Interventions to reduce inhibitors
Which factor to use?
Is there a factor that has less inhibitors?
Plasma derived
(PD) FVIII
Recombinant (r) FVIII
Type of Factor
Plasma derived
(PD) FVIII
Recombinant (r) FVIII
Type of Factor
Some studies suggest lower incidence of
inhibitors
Plasma derived
(PD) FVIII
Recombinant (r) FVIII
Type of Factor
Some studies suggest lower incidence of
inhibitors
But confounding variables
Differences in how Inhibitor surveillance
Different populations - different inhibitor risks
Reporting bias – studies showing low inhibitor
incidence more likely to be reported
Iorio et al. JTH, 2010
• Systematic literature review of inhibitor development in Hemophilia A
Pd-FVIII(1,167 pts)
rFVIII(927 pts)
24 studiesincluded
Iorio et al. JTH, 2010
• Systematic literature review of inhibitor development in Hemophilia A
Inhibitor development
Pd-FVIII(1,167 pts)
rFVIII(927 pts)
P value
HTI and LTI in severe pts
16% (10-23%)
34% (29-40%) <0.001
HTI (≥ 5 BU)in severe pts
9% (4-19%)
18% (14-23%) 0.009
24 studiesincluded
Iorio et al. JTH, 2010
• Systematic literature review of inhibitor development in Hemophilia A
Inhibitors Pd-FVIII(1,167 pts)
rFVIII(927 pts)
P value
All in severe pts
16% (10-23%)
34% (29-40%) <0.001
≥ 5 BU in severe pts
9% (4-19%)
18% (14-23%) 0.009
24 studiesincluded
Most of the difference explained by •Testing frequency
“more recent studies (usually with rFVIII) have tested more frequently and consequently find more inhibitors”
•Follow-up time “if patients are followed for a longer time more inhibitors will be found”
“factor type was not a statistically significant determinant of inhibitor development”
Iorio et al. JTH, 2010
• Systematic literature review of inhibitor development in Hemophilia A
Inhibitors Pd-FVIII(1,167 pts)
rFVIII(927 pts)
P value
All in severe pts
16% (10-23%)
34% (29-40%) <0.001
≥ 5 BU in severe pts
9% (4-19%)
18% (14-23%) 0.009
24 studiesincludedMost of the variability explained by
•Testing frequency “more recent studies have tested more and find more inhibitors”
•Follow-up time
When taken into account factor type not statistical significance
“..not possible to prove or disprove the hypothesis that
there is a higher risk of inhibitor development associated with the
use of recombinant vs. Plasma derived FVIII”
• Systematic literature review of inhibitor developmentSippet Study(Survey of Inhibitor development in plasma-product exposed toddlers)
Is ongoing
(150 of 300 patients already enrolled)
Randomized head to head comparison
Interventions to reduce inhibitors
How can we expose him in the
least immunogenic way
Early prophylaxis &avoidance of intense
exposure
Can introduction of early prophylaxis reduce risk of
inhibitor?
1. Is there an explanation as to why early start of prophylaxis may reduce inhibitor incidence?
2. Is there any evidence that it does?
DangerFVIII Risk
InflammationSevere bleed (ICH)
Surgery
1. Possible explanation “The Danger Signal Theory”
Signal 1 Signal 2
Baseline genetic risk
• Cytokine production• Activation of Antigen Presenting Cells• Activation of T lymphocytes• Antibody prod. by B lymphocytes
Matzinger P. The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science 2002; 296:301-5.
DangerFVIII
No Danger Signal
FVIII
Risk
Risk
Prophylaxis
InflammationSevere bleed (ICH)
Surgery
1. Possible explanation “The Danger Signal Theory”
Signal 1
Signal 1
Signal 2
Baseline genetic risk
2. EVIDENCE: early introduction of prophylaxis inhibitor risk1. Morado 2005 Spain
2. Santagostino 2005 Italy
3. Gouw 2007 Multi-Europe + Canada
4. Gouw 2007 Netherlands
5. Ragni 2009 USA
6. Kurnik 2010 Germany
7. MacLean 2011 UK
1. Morado 2005 Spain
2. Santagostino 2005 Italy
3. Gouw 2007 Multi-Europe + Canada
4. Gouw 2007 Netherlands
5. Ragni 2009 USA
6. Kurnik 2010 Germany
7. MacLean 2011 UK
Largest
Interventional
2. EVIDENCE: early introduction of prophylaxis inhibitor risk
#3) Gouw et al (CANAL study) (2007)
Retrospective cohort study
366 consecutive severe hemophilia A patients
born 1990-2000
14 centers (13 Europe + 1 Canada)
87 developed inhibitors (24%)Median age at INH. development: 15 mo (14 ED)
Gouw SC et al. Blood. 2007;109(11):4648-4654.
A large study
#3) Gouw et al (CANAL study) (2007)
Main Findings
1) Intense exposure risk of inhibitor
(≥ 5 CED) at 1st exposure= 3.3 X(≥ 5 CED) during 1st 50 ED= 2.0 X
2) Early start of prophylaxis
risk of inhibitor by 60%
Gouw SC et al. Blood. 2007;109(11):4648-4654.
#7) Kurnik et al. (2010) (Bremen & Munich)
New Early Start (Low dose) Prophylaxis
Traditional (High dose) Prophylaxis
Prophylaxis regimen
Start very early25 U/kg 1/wk
No Ports
40–50 U/kg; 3/wkstart at or after 1st joint/severe bleed
# of patients 26 consecutive 30 consecutive
Kurnik K et al. Haemophilia 2010; 16:256-62.
Interventional PILOT Study to explore whether early start of prophylaxis would reduce inhibitor development
Median age at
New Early Start (Low dose) Prophylaxis
Traditional (High dose) Prophylaxis
Start of prophylaxis 10.7 mo 19 mo
EDs before prophylaxis 1 30
Inhibitor incidence
1 / 26 (3.8%) [0 HTI]
Kurnik K et al. Haemophilia 2010; 16:256-62.
Findings#7) Kurnik et al. (2010) (Bremen & Munich)
Median age at
New Early Start (Low dose) Prophylaxis
Traditional (High dose) Prophylaxis
Start of prophylaxis 10.7 mo 19 mo
EDs before prophylaxis 1 30
Inhibitor incidence
1 / 26 (3.8%) [0 HTI]
14 / 30 (47%) [ 8 HTI]
Kurnik K et al. Haemophilia 2010; 16:256-62.
Findings#7) Kurnik et al. (2010) (Bremen & Munich)
Early start of prophylaxis protects against inhibitor development
It permits children to be exposed to FVIII without any danger signals for
inhibitor development
Conclusions from these studies
• At 8 months of age• Parents asked is there
anything that we can do to reduce Nathan’s chances of developing an inhibitor
What happened to Nathan?
• 8 mo: Started on Early Low dose “Prophylaxis” with PD FVIII 25 U/kg every 2 wks - peripheral IV
• 18 mo: to 1 / wk prophylaxis
• 25 mo: to 2 / wk prophylaxis
• Now 34 mo: Has had > 75 ED No Inhibitor
What happened to Nathan?
• Why did he not get an inhibitor?
–Choice of Factor?
–Early Prophylaxis?
–Luck?
We will never know from one case alone!
What happened to Nathan?
Summary1.Inhibitor Development is a major
problem
2.Reducing inhibitors is critical
3.Non genetic inhibitor risk factors are important and may be modifiable
4.We must try to reduce inhibitor development
Thank-you for your attention
Thank-you for the kind invitation to come to Beirut
Do I believe that exposing children with severe hemophilia A at very young ages to factor in the least
immunogenic way will result in less inhibitors?
YES
Multiple PD FVIII
Single PD FVIII
Single rFVIII
Inhibitor Risk in PUPs: High titer (≥5 BU) only
Wight J, Paisley S. Haemophilia 2003;9:318-35
Multiple PD FVIII
Single PD FVIII
Single rFVIII
Inhibitor Risk in PUPs: High titer (≥5 BU) only
Wight J, Paisley S. Haemophilia 2003;9:318-35
No difference
• Often very small studies with few patients
(some as low as n= 19 pts)
• Mostly retrospective
• Reporting bias – studies showing low
incidence more likely to be reported
Single PD FVIII studies
Larger StudiesGoudemand J. et al. Blood
2006;107:46-51
148 patients followed in FranceType of factor Pts % Inhibitor % HTI
rFVIII (Recombinate & Kogenate) 62 32% 15%FVIII-LFB (VWF containing-pdFVIII) 86 10% 5%
P value - adjusted for race, family history & age at 1st
exposure0.049 NS
Other recent large studies
Chalmers et al. Haemophilia 2007
348 PUPS with severe hemophilia A
Gouw et al. (CANAL) Blood 2007
366 PUPS with severe hemophilia A
Other recent large studies
Chalmers et al. Haemophilia 2007
348 PUPS with severe hemophilia A
Gouw et al. (CANAL) Blood 2007
366 PUPS with severe hemophilia A
No statistically increased
risk of inhibitors with rFVIII
vs. Pd FVIII
(after adjusting for other
risk factors)
Type of Factor
Recombinant (r) FVIII
Plasma derived (PD) FVIII
40 separate slides – must reduce by 10
Written by David Lillicrap June 11, 2010
• After studying FVIII Ab generation for the past several years in many hemophilic mice, the lessons we have learnt are - most severe hemophiliacs will not have central tolerance for FVIII - ie. they don't make FVIII and thus won't delete FVIII-specific T cells or generate Tregs in the thymus. Because of this, you need to provide these patients with FVIII so that they can generate peripheral tolerance to the protein. This requires controlled "non-inflammatory" presentation of FVIII by APCs to FVIII-specific CD4+ cells that will either die by apoptosis, become anergic (functionally useless) or become FVIII-specific Tregs. It's the generation, expansion and maintenance of this latter T cell population that likely keeps us from generating FVIII inhibitors. You are much more likely to achieve this in a controlled low dose prophylaxis setting than at the time of a surgical intervention where coexistent high doses of FVIII and inflammation may favor immunogenicity and FVIII-specific T effector cell generation.
#1) Morado et al (2005)10 year retrospective review
50 PUPS with Severe Hemophilia A- 19 treated on-demand - 31 treated on prophylaxis
Main findings
15/19 PUPS treated on demand inhibitorsMean age at inhibitor = 21 mo
0/31 PUPS placed on Prophylaxis inhibitors Mean age at start of prophylaxis = 34 mo
Morado M et al. Haemophilia. 2005;11(2):79-83.
#1) Morado et al (2005)10 year retrospective review
50 PUPS with Severe Hemophilia A- 19 treated on-demand - 31 treated on prophylaxis
Main findings
15/19 PUPS treated on demand inhibitorsMean age at inhibitor = 21 mo
0/31 PUPS placed on Prophylaxis inhibitors Mean age at start of prophylaxis = 34 mo
Morado M et al. Haemophilia. 2005;11(2):79-83.
Problem with study:
By time pts were started on prophylaxis those who were destined to develop inhibitors had already developed them.
Analysis flawed!
#3) Gouw et al (CANAL study) (2007)
Main Findings of the Canal Study
Intense therapy at 1st exposure = 3.3 fold risk
Intense therapy during first 50 ED = 2 fold risk
Early start of prophylaxis (min. 1/wk)
risk of inhibitor by 60%
Gouw SC et al. Blood. 2007;109(11):4648-4654.
Analysis:
Cox Regression (Kaplan Meier type) analysis done
To adjust for time varying issues of when prophylaxis is commenced in relation to exposure days
Much larger study with better analysis!
Inhibitor Risk in PUPs: All Inhibitors
Wight J, Paisley S. Haemophilia 2003;9:318-35
Multiple PD FVIII
Single PD FVIII
Single rFVIII
#2) Santagostino E et al. (2005)
Case-control study
108 PUPS with severe hemophilia A60 inhibitor POS. patients (Cases)48 inhibitor NEG. patients (Controls)
Main FindingsCases: Only 7/60 (12%) had been placed on prophylaxis
Controls: Most [34/48 (71%)] had been placed on prophylaxis
Santagostino E et al. Br J Haematol. 2005;130(3):422-427
#2) Santagostino E et al. (2005)
Main problem
Median age at inhibitor detection: 23 mo
Median age at start of prophylaxis: 35 mo
Santagostino E et al. Br J Haematol. 2005;130(3):422-427
Similar problems to Morado study By time pts were started on prophylaxis those who were destined to develop inhibitors had already developed them.
Sub-analysis helped but did not completely resolve statistical issues
#2) Santagostino E et al. (2005)
Main problem
Median age at inhibitor detection: 23 mo
Median age at start of prophylaxis: 35 mo
Santagostino E et al. Br J Haematol. 2005;130(3):422-427
Similar problems to Morado study By time pts were started on prophylaxis those who were destined to develop inhibitors had already developed them.
Sub-analysis helped but did not completely resolve the analytical issues
Conclusion: Pts who started prophylaxis had an 80% lower incidence of inhibitors
#4) Gouw et al (2007) [4 PUP studies]Retrospective cohort study of 4 rFVIII registration studies involving 236 PUPS (FVIII <2%)
67 (28%) developed inhibitors (median 10 ED; 16 mo)
Main findingsIntense exposure risk of inhibitor
(≥ 5 CED) at 1st exposure= 2.1 X(≥ 5 CED) during 1st 50 ED= 1.6 X
Unable to comment on effect of prophylaxis as few pts on prophylaxis
Gouw SC et al. JTH 2007; 5: 1383-90.
#5) Ragni et al (2009)Case–control study (single center – USA) 77 PUPS (severe hemophilia A)
20 Inhibitor POS.57 age-matched Inhibitor NEG. controls
Main finding
Patients who developed inhibitors had received (prior to inhibitor development) much greater intensity exposure (p < 0.005)
Ragni M et al. Haemophilia 2009; 15: 1074-82.
#5) Ragni et al (2009)
“Given the potential benefits of prophylaxis
in reducing inhibitor formation … it is
critical to direct efforts at early prevention
through early institution of prophylaxis”
Ragni M et al. Haemophilia 2009; 15: 1074-82.
#6) Maclean et al (2011)
Retrospective case control study from 13 UK haemophilia centers of 156 PUPS born (1982-2007)
78 inhibitor POS.78 inhibitor NEG. [age & center matched controls]
All Followed for at least 50 ED
Maclean P et al. Haemophilia 2011; 17:282-7.
Main Findings1) High intensity treatment during 1st 50 ED
inhibitor risk
≥ 5 CED: 2.7 fold (CI: 1.4–5.4)
≥ 10 CED: 5.5 fold (CI: 1.5–20) (e.g. ICH )
2) To few patients started prophylaxis to find a statistically significant effect of prophylaxis
Maclean P et al. Haemophilia 2011; 17:282-7.
#6) Maclean et al (2011)
Why Do Inhibitors Develop?
Severe hemophilia(20-30%)
Mild / Mod Hemophilia (3-10%)
No endogenous factorSome endogenous factor
(conformationally altered)
Entire Exogenous factor
= foreign protein
Small part of exogenous factor
= foreign protein
A Population map of the world
The world is changing
YES YES
YES YESWoof
YES YESWoof
Thanks for your attention!
Clinical Evidence for decreased inhibitors with Pd-FVIII
(% developing inhibitors)
Goudemand et al, Blood 2006: PUPS with
SHA (France)
Chalmers et al, Haemophilia 2007:
PUPS with SHA (UK)
rFVIII 32% (26 / 86 pts) 27% (46 / 172 pts)
Pd VWF-FVIII 10% (6 / 62 pts) 14% (18 / 132 pts)
Both retrospective studies
Clinical Evidence for decreased inhibitors with Pd-FVIII
(% developing inhibitors)
Goudemand et al, Blood 2006: PUPS with
SHA (France)
Chalmers et al, Haemophilia 2007:
PUPS with SHA (UK)
rFVIII 32% (26 / 86 pts) 27% (46 / 172 pts)
Pd VWF-FVIII 10% (6 / 62 pts) 14% (18 / 132 pts)
Both retrospective studies
No randomized head to
head comparison
(Sippet study)
Overall incidence of Inhibitor development (PUP studies)
1998 1997 1998 1998 2001Gruppo Lusher Rothschild Lusher Courter
Product Rec Kog Rec Kog Refacto
# of pts 72 64 52 97 92
Incidence 31% 28% 29% 28% 35%
Rec = Recombinate Kog = KogenateNo statistical difference in inhibitor incidence
Specific FVIII products
•A few PD FVIII products reported to be associated with high incidence of inhibitors–Belgium –NetherlandsModifications in the manufacturing +/or viral inactivating process led to Neo-antigen development
•A few PD FVIII reported to be associated with a low incidence of inhibitors
Product (Study Period); Author (Country), date of publication
# of pts
% Inhibitor
% with HTI
Octanate (00-06); Klukowska (Poland), 06 24 8% 8%
Emoclot (87-03); Gringeri (Italy), 06 71 10% 7%FVIII-LFB (88-01); Goudemand (France), 05 86 10% 6%
OctaVI (89-99); Glomstein (Norway), unpub. 19 11% n.a.
Fandhi (97-99); Rokicka-Milewska (Poland), 00 19 5% n.a.
8Y (85-04); Brown (UK), unpub. 74 4% 3%
OVERALL 269 8% 6%
Information courtesy of Dr A. Gringeri, Sept 06
European studies on Inhibitor development in SHA PUPs treated with pdFVIII
Product (Study Period); Author (Country), date of publication
# of pts
% Inhibitor
% with HTI
Octanate (00-06); Klukowska (Poland), 06 24 8% 8%
Emoclot (87-03); Gringeri (Italy), 06 71 10% 7%FVIII-LFB (88-01); Goudemand (France), 05 86 10% 6%
OctaVI (89-99); Glomstein (Norway), unpub. 19 11% n.a.
Fandhi (97-99); Rokicka-Milewska (Poland), 00 19 5% n.a.
8Y (85-04); Brown (UK), unpub. 74 4% 3%
OVERALL 269 8% 6%
Information courtesy of Dr A. Gringeri, Sept 06
Reporting bias
European studies on Inhibitor development in SHA PUPs treated with pdFVIII
Product (Study Period); Author (Country), date of publication
# of pts
% Inhibitor
% with HTI
Octanate (00-06); Klukowska (Poland), 06 24 8% 8%
Emoclot (87-03); Gringeri (Italy), 06 71 10% 7%FVIII-LFB (88-01); Goudemand (France), 05 86 10% 6%
OctaVI (89-99); Glomstein (Norway), unpub. 19 11% n.a.
Fandhi (97-99); Rokicka-Milewska (Poland), 00 19 5% n.a.
8Y (85-04); Brown (UK), unpub. 74 4% 3%
OVERALL 269 8% 6%
European studies on Inhibitor development in SHA PUPs treated with pdFVIII
Information courtesy of Dr A. Gringeri, Sept 06
Overall conclusions regarding Type of and Inhibitor risk
1. No consensus as to whether rFVIII is more immunogenic than pd FVIII
2. Some pd FVIII may be less immunogenic - Some much more immunogenic
3. No difference in inhibitor risk between rFVIII products
4. There is bias in reporting
Recent experiences of pdFVIII vs. rFVIII
• Shirahata et al (2011; Hemophilia)• Japan experience of inhibitor development in
153 pts (PUPS) with severe hemophilia A• Inhibitor incidence
pdFVIII rFVIII29.7% 25%
No difference
Recent experiences of pdFVIII vs. rFVIII
• Strauss et al (2011; Hemophilia)• Israeli experience of inhibitor development in
292 pts (PUPS) with severe hemophilia A• Inhibitor incidence
pdFVIII rFVIIIAll inhibitors 8.8% (22/249) 32.5% (14/43)
HTI 8.8% (22/249) 28% (12/43)
Not clear that all severe All severe
ICH is a risk factor for inhibitors
• Strauss et al (2011; Hemophilia)• Israeli experience of inhibitor
development in 292 pts (PUPS) with severe hemophilia A
• 9/11 patients who suffered an ICH developed an inhibitor
top related