Few randomized studies have reported on the use of factor IX (FIX) for secondary prophylaxis in haemophilia B patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two secondary prophylaxis regimens of recombinant coagulation FIX, nonacog alfa, compared with on-demand therapy. Male subjects aged 6-65 years with severe or moderately severe haemophilia B (FIX:C ≤ 2, n = 50) and ≥12 bleeding episodes (including ≥6 haemarthroses episodes) within 12 months of study participation were enrolled in this multicentre, randomized, open-label, four-period crossover trial. The primary measure was the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) of two prophylactic regimens vs. on-demand therapy. In the intent-to-treat group, mean ABR values were 35.1, 2.6 and 4.6 for the first on-demand period, the 50 IU kg(-1) twice-weekly period, and the 100 IU kg(-1) once-weekly period respectively. Differences in ABR between the first on-demand period and both prophylaxis regimens were significant (P < 0.0001); no significant differences were observed between prophylaxis regimens (P = 0.22). Seven serious adverse events occurred in five subjects, none related to study drug. Results demonstrated that secondary prophylaxis therapy with nonacog alfa 50 IU kg(-1) twice weekly or 100 IU kg(-1) once weekly reduced ABR by 89.4% relative to on-demand treatment. Both prophylaxis regimens demonstrated favourable safety profiles in subjects with haemophilia B.

No abstract

No abstract

Patients with congenital hemophilia require lifelong replacement therapy with a clotting factor concentrate: factor (F) VIII in hemophilia A and FIX in hemophilia B (1). However, patients can develop inhibitors to these exogenous factors, resulting in the most serious treatment related complication in hemophilia (2, 3). Once inhibitors have developed, it is more challenging to achieve hemostasis than in non-inhibitor patients. Furthermore , the presence of inhibitors has a major impact on patients' physical functioning, quality of life, morbidity , and mortality (4-6). In patients with high-titer inhibitors [ ‡5 Bethesda units (BU)], immune tolerance induction (ITI) aims to eradicate anamnestic inhibitors and restore normal responses to replacement therapy. The process of ITI involves regular infusion of FVIII or FIX concentrate with the goal Abstract For hemophilia patients with inhibitors, immune tolerance induction (ITI) may help to restore clinical response to factor (F) VIII or FIX concentrates. Several ITI regimens and protocols exist; however, despite 30 yr of progressive investigation, the ITI evidence base relies mainly on observational data. Expert opinion, experience, and interpretation of the available evidence are therefore valuable to support clinical decision-making. At the Sixth Zü rich Haemophilia Forum, an expert panel considered recent data and consensus to distill key practice points relating to ITI. The panel supported current recommendations that, where feasible, ITI should be offered early to children and adults (ideally £5 yr of inhibitor detection) when inhibitor titers are <10 Bethesda units (BU) and should be stopped when successful tolerance is achieved. For hemophilia A inhibitor patients, ITI can be founded on recombinant FVIII at high doses. The panel considered that patients with a high bleeding frequency should be offered additional prophylaxis with a bypassing agent. For patients with hemophilia B, there may be a benefit of genetic testing to indicate the risk for inhibitors. ITI is often less effective and associated with a greater risk of side effects in these patients. For high-titer inhibitor (‡5 BU) hemophilia B patients, the panel advised that bypassing agents could be offered on demand in addition to ITI. Within future ITI regimens, there may be a role for additional immunosuppressant therapies. Participants agreed that research is needed to find alternatives to ITI therapy that offer durable and sustained effects and reduced rates of complications.

Summary. Background: Vatreptacog alfa, a recombinant human factor VIIa (rFVIIa) analog developed to improve the treatment of bleeds in hemophilia patients with inhibitors, differs from native FVIIa by three amino acid substitutions. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover, confirmatory phase III trial (adept TM 2), 8/72 (11%) hemophilia A or B patients with inhibitors treated for acute bleeds developed anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) to vatreptacog alfa. Objectives: To characterize the formation of anti-vatreptacog alfa ADAs in hemophilia patients with inhibitors. Methods/patients: This was a post hoc analysis of adept TM 2. Immunoglobulin isotype determination, specificity analysis of rFVIIa cross-reactive antibodies, epitope mapping of rFVIIa single mutant analogs and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiling were performed to characterize the ADAs. Results: Immunoglobulin isotyping indicated that the ADAs were of the immunoglobulin G subtype. In epitope mapping, none of the rFVIIa single mutant analogs (V158D, E296V or M298Q) contained the complete antibody epitope, confirming that the antibodies were specific for vatreptacog alfa. In two patients, for whom PK profiling was performed both before and after the development of ADAs, vatreptacog alfa showed a prolonged elimination phase following ADA development. During the follow-up evaluation, the rFVIIa cross-reactivity disappeared after the last vatreptacog alfa exposure, despite continued exposure to rFVIIa as part of standard care. Conclusions: Results from the vatreptacog alfa phase III trial demonstrate that the specific changes made, albeit relatively small, to the FVIIa molecule alter its clinical immunogenicity.