Early factor VIII exposure and subsequent inhibitor development in children with severe haemophilia A

Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, UK.
Haemophilia (Impact Factor: 2.47). 04/2007; 13(2):149-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2006.01418.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent reports have suggested that the incidence of inhibitors in haemophilia is the highest in those first exposed to factor VIII under 6 months of age. In this study, we investigated inhibitor development in children first exposed to FVIII as neonates and also examined the effect of other genetic and environmental variables. Three hundred and forty-eight children with severe haemophilia A were investigated. Inhibitors developed in 68 of 348 (20%), with 34 of 348 (10%) high titre inhibitors. The incidence in relation to initial FVIII exposure was: <1 month nine of 35 (26%), 1-6 months 13 of 51 (25%), 6-12 months 27 of 130 (21%), 12-18 months 13 of 66 (20%) and >18 months six of 66 (9%). While we observed a significant difference in inhibitor development and age at first exposure across all age groups (P = 0.018), no significant difference was observed in children treated at different time points during the first year of life (P = 0.44). Similar results were obtained for high titre inhibitors. There was also no difference in the incidence of inhibitors in relation to initial FVIII exposure in a subgroup of 144 children with the intron 22 mutation. Inhibitors developed more frequently in those initially treated with recombinant when compared with plasma-derived FVIII (P = 0.006) and in those with a major molecular defect (P = 0.009). In this study, exposure to FVIII during the neonatal period was not associated with a higher incidence of inhibitors than those treated later during the first year of life. Initial treatment with recombinant FVIII and the presence of a major molecular defect were the most important variables affecting inhibitor development.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effect of recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) brand on inhibitor development was investigated in all 407 severe haemophilia A previously untreated patients born in the UK between 1/January/2000 and 31/December/2011. Eighty-eight (22%) had been in the RODIN study. Information was extracted from the National Haemophilia Database. Since exposure days (EDs) were not known for some patients, time from first treatment was used as a surrogate for rFVIII exposure. An inhibitor developed in 118 (29%) patients, 60 high and 58 low titre, after a median (interquartile range) 7.8 (3.3-13.5) months from first exposure and 16 (9-30) EDs. Of 128 patients treated with Kogenate Bayer/Helixate Nexgen 45 (35.2%, 95% CI 27.4-43.8) developed an inhibitor compared with 42/172 (24.4%, 95%CI 18.6-31.4%) with Advate (P=0.04). The adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) for Kogenate Bayer/Helixate Nexgen compared to Advate was 2.14 (1.12-4.10), P=0.02 for high titre and 1.75 (1.11-2.76), P=0.02 for all inhibitors. When excluding UK-RODIN patients the adjusted HR (95% CI) for high titre inhibitors was 2.00 (0.93-4.34), P=0.08. ReFacto AF was associated with a higher incidence of all, but not high titre, inhibitors than Advate. These results will help inform debate around the relative immunogenicity and use of rFVIII brands.
    Blood 10/2014; 124(23). DOI:10.1182/blood-2014-07-580498 · 9.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The introduction of new hemophilia management therapies, targeting extended half-lives through bioengineering, ushers in an era of potential promise and increasing complexity, more so for those with hemophilia B than hemophilia A. Questions arise for patients, caregivers, and hemophilia treatment center (HTC) staff about how to assess and incorporate novel therapies and how to determine whether new therapies offer a distinct advantage over established treatment routines. Nurses and other interdisciplinary HTC staff are well positioned to assess, educate, and support patients and families in navigating this rapidly changing landscape. To support these challenging efforts, this review offers a perspective on issues affecting therapeutic transitions and provides tools to foster ongoing adherence.
    Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis 08/2014; 40(7). DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1384636 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heavy menstrual bleeding without an organic lesion is mainly due to an imbalance of the various hormones which have a regulatory effect on the menstrual cycle. Another cause of heavy menstrual bleeding with no pelvic pathology, is the presence of an acquired or inherited bleeding disorder. The haemostatic system has a central role in controlling the amount and the duration of menstrual bleeding, thus abnormally prolonged or profuse bleeding does occur in most women affected by bleeding disorders. Whereas irregular, pre-menarchal or post-menopausal uterine bleeding is unusual in inherited or acquired haemorrhagic disorders, severe acute bleeding and heavy menstrual bleeding at menarche and chronic heavy menstrual bleeding during the entire reproductive life are common. To determine the efficacy and safety of non-surgical interventions versus each other, placebo or no treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss in women with bleeding disorders. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (13 March 2014), Embase (May 2013), LILACS (February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trial registry (February 2013). Randomised controlled studies of non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women of reproductive age suffering from a congenital or acquired bleeding disorder. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Three cross-over studies, with 175 participants were included in the review. All three studies had an unclear risk of bias with regards to trial design and overall, the quality of evidence generated was judged to be poor.Two of the studies (n = 59) compared desmopressin (1-deamino-8-D-arginine vasopressin) with placebo. Menstrual blood loss was the primary outcome for both of these studies. Neither study found clear evidence of a difference between groups. The first of these reported a mean difference in menstrual blood loss in the desmopressin versus placebo group of 21.20 mL (95% confidence interval -19.00 to 61.50)The second study reported that even though there was an improvement of pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores with desmopressin and placebo when compared to pretreatment assessment, there was no clear evidence of difference in these scores when the two were compared to each other (results presented graphically, P = 0.51). The data from these studies could not be combined.The third study (n = 116) compared desmopressin with tranexamic acid (n = 116). This study found a decrease in pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores after both treatments as compared to baseline. The decrease in these scores was greater for tranexamic acid than for desmopressin, with a mean difference of 41.6 mL (95% confidence interval 19.6 to 63) (P < 0.0002).In relation to adverse events, across two studies, there was no clear evidence of a difference when placebo was compared to desmopressin, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34) . The same was also true when desmopressin was compared to tranexamic acid, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34).Only the study that compared desmopressin to tranexamic acid assessed quality of life. However, we are unable to present any data from this study, since no differences in this outcome between the two intervention groups were reported. Evidence from randomised controlled studies on the effect of desmopressin when compared to placebo in reducing menstrual blood loss is very limited and inconclusive. Two studies, each with a very limited number of participants, have shown uncertain effects in menstrual blood loss and adverse effects. A non-randomised comparison in one of the studies points to the value of combining desmopressin and tranexamic acid, which needs to be tested in a formal randomised controlled study comparison.When tranexamic acid was compared to desmopressin, a single study showed a reduction in menstrual blood loss with tranexamic acid use compared to desmopressin.There is a need to evaluate non-surgical methods for treating of menorrhagia in women with bleeding disorders through randomised controlled studies. Such methods would be more acceptable than surgery for women wishing to retain their fertility. Given that women may need to use these treatments throughout their entire reproductive life, long-term side-effects should be evaluated.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 11/2014; 11(11):CD010338. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010338.pub2 · 5.70 Impact Factor


Available from