Gary Benson

The acute management of haemorrhage, surgery and overdose in patients receiving dabigatran

Dabigatran is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI) licensed for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and likely to be soon approved in Europe for treatment of venous thrombosis. Predictable pharmacokinetics and a reduced risk of intracranial haemorrhage do not negate the potential risk of haemorrhage. Unlike warfarin, there is no reversal agent and measurement of the anticoagulant effect is not ‘routine’. The prothrombin time/international normalised ratio response to dabigatran is inconsistent and should not be measured when assessing a patient who is bleeding or needs emergency surgery. The activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) provides a qualitative measurement of the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran. Knowledge of the time of last dose is important for interpretation of the APTT. Commercially available DTI assays provide a quantitative measurement of active dabigatran concentration in the plasma. If a patient receiving dabigatran presents with bleeding: omit/delay next dose of dabigatran; measure APTT and thrombin time (consider DTI assay if available); administer activated charcoal, with sorbitol, if within 2 h of dabigatran ingestion; give tranexamic acid (1 g intravenously if significant bleeding); maintain renal perfusion and urine output to aid dabigatran excretion. Dabigatran exhibits low protein binding and may be removed by dialysis. Supportive care should form the mainstay of treatment. If bleeding is life/limb threatening, consider an additional haemostatic agent. There is currently no evidence to support the choice of one haemostatic agent (FEIBA, recombinant factor VIIa, prothrombin complex concentrates) over another. Choice will depend on access to and experience with available haemostatic agent(s).

Immune tolerance induction in patients with severe hemophilia with inhibitors: expert panel views and recommendations for clinical practice

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 Zürich 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.

The need for speed in the management of haemophilia patients with inhibitors

Summary.  Rapid control of bleeding is the key to reducing bleeding complications and thereby preserving joint and musculoskeletal function in haemophilia patients with inhibitors. However, this requires early diagnosis following the onset of bleeding and strategies for rapid treatment in an outpatient setting. Overarching themes on the need for speed in managing bleeds in haemophilia patients were examined by a panel of clinicians experienced in managing inhibitor patients and joint disease during the Third Zürich Haemophilia Forum on 8 May 2009. This report summarizes the opinions of the panel on how to achieve rapid bleeding control in inhibitor patients and areas that were identified by the panel for future research or as needing new consensus guidelines. The consensus was that home treatment should be established for haemophilia patients with inhibitors, as it is associated with a faster time to treatment, as well as improvements in the quality of life of patients and their carers. In addition, as improved haemostatic control now allows inhibitor patients to participate in a wider range of physical activities, specific guidelines are required on which types of sport and work are appropriate. It was agreed that clear, systematic approaches are needed for early diagnosis of joint and muscle bleeds in inhibitor patients, which could facilitate rapid treatment. There may be opportunities for exploiting new diagnostic techniques from osteoarthritis to enable earlier diagnosis of haemophilic arthropathy. Overall, it was concluded that greater emphasis should be placed on education and patients’ psychological needs, to enable inhibitor patients to cope up more effectively with their disease.

Paediatric haemophilia with inhibitors: existing management options, treatment gaps and unmet needs

Summary.  Development of inhibitors is a severe complication of haemophilia posing many management challenges. While a long‐term goal in inhibitor patients is eradication of inhibitors through immune tolerance induction, bypassing agents such as recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) and activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) are essential for control of bleeding episodes. Paediatric patients with haemophilia and inhibitors are at particular risk of recurrent haemarthroses, and management of these patients should seek to avoid joint damage and support the child’s full social and physical development. Current options for management of bleeding complications include on‐demand treatment of acute bleeding episodes, secondary prophylaxis to avoid recurrent bleeds and surgery to treat affected joints. There is also a rationale for adopting prophylactic approaches to prevent bleeding in inhibitor patients, allowing this group similar opportunities for protection against arthropathy development as are given to non‐inhibitor patients. This paper, based on a roundtable meeting of haematology experts at the first Zürich Haemophilia Forum in May 2008, reviews the current evidence supporting more intense and prophylactic approaches to manage bleeding risk in paediatric haemophilia patients with inhibitors, and highlights the need for investigations of primary prophylaxis in this vulnerable patient group, to support best long‐term outcome.

Novel coagulation factor concentrates: Issues relating to their clinical implementation and pharmacokinetic assessment for optimal prophylaxis in haemophilia patients.

Prophylaxis is considered the optimal treatment regimen for patients with severe haemophilia, and may be especially important in the prevention of joint disease. Novel coagulation factor concentrates with prolonged half‐lives promise to improve patient treatment by enabling prophylaxis with less frequent dosing. With the call to individualize therapy in haemophilia, there is growing awareness of the need to use pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments to tailor prophylaxis. However, for new factor concentrates, it is not yet known which PK values will be most informative for optimizing prophylaxis. This topic was explored at the Eighth Zurich Haemophilia Forum. On the basis of our clinical experience and a discussion of the literature, we report key issues relating to the PK assessment of new coagulation factors and include suggestions on the implementation of PK data to optimize therapy. As both inter‐ and intra‐individual variability in factor half‐life have been reported, we suggest that frequent PK assessments should be conducted. However, to diminish the burden of more frequent sampling, sparser sampling strategies and the use of population modelling should be considered. Guidelines on how to assay new factor concentrates, and which PK parameters should be measured, are needed. Concerns were raised regarding the possibility of breakthrough bleeding, and current thinking on how to prevent breakthrough bleeding may no longer be appropriate. Finally, as treatment adherence may be more important to ensure that a therapeutic level of a new coagulation factor concentrate is maintained, behavioural techniques could be implemented to help to improve treatment adherence.

Switching treatments in haemophilia: is there a risk of inhibitor development?

Patients with haemophilia A (and their physicians) may be reluctant to switch factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates, often due to concerns about increasing the risk of inhibitors; this reluctance to switch may contribute to patients missing the clinical benefits provided by the arrival of new factor VIII products. This topic was explored at the Eleventh Zürich Haemophilia Forum. Clinical scenarios for which product switching may be cause for concern were discussed; when there is a clinical need, there are no absolute contraindications to switching, but some patients (e.g. previously untreated patients and those undergoing elective surgery) may require more careful consideration. Both patient and physician surveys indicate that the reluctance to switch, and the fear of inhibitor development, does not appear to be evidence based. The evaluation of more recent data did not support previous studies suggesting that particular products (e.g. recombinant vs. plasma‐derived and full length vs. B‐domain modified) may be associated with increased risk. In addition, data from three national product switches showed that switching was not associated with increased inhibitor risk, but highlighted the need for regular inhibitor testing and for a centralised, unbiased database of inhibitor incidence. To conclude, current evidence does not suggest that switching products significantly influences inhibitor development.

Rationale for individualizing haemophilia care.

Owing to the heterogeneity in the clinical phenotype of haemophilia A and B, it is now recognized that disease severity (based on factor VIII/IX activity) may no longer be the most appropriate guide for treatment and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to achieve optimal therapy. Based on the present literature and consensus views of a group of experts in the field, this article highlights key gaps in the understanding of the diverse relationships between bleeding phenotype and factors such as joint health, genetic susceptibility, laboratory parameters, quality of life and management of pain. Early prophylaxis is a potential ‘gold standard’ therapy and issues surrounding inhibitor development, variations in its clinical use and long-term outcomes are discussed. Comprehensive treatment should be individualized for all patients (including those with mild or moderate haemophilia and carriers). Wherever possible all patients should be given prophylaxis. However, adult patients with a milder haemophilia phenotype may be candidates for ceasing prophylaxis and switching to on-demand treatment. Regardless, all treatment (on-demand and prophylaxis) should be tailored towards both the patients personal needs and their clinical profile. In addition, as the associations between risk factors (psychosocial, condition-related and treatment-related) and clinical features are unique to each patient, an individualized approach is required to enable patients to alter their behaviour in response to them. The practical methodologies needed to reach this goal of individualized haemophilia care, and the health economic implications of this strategy, are ongoing topics for discussion.

Achieving and maintaining an optimal trough level for prophylaxis in haemophilia: the past, the present and the future

Recurrent joint bleeding, leading to the development of joint disease and arthropathy, are the hallmarks of haemophilia. Prevention of bleeding through prophylaxis, rather than the on-demand treatment of bleeding events when they occur, is considered the gold standard of treatment for severe haemophilia. The original aim of prophylaxis was to avoid arthropathy by changing the bleeding phenotype from a severe to moderate form. While the use of prophylaxis has undoubtedly improved patients’ outcome and quality of life (QoL) by preventing bleeding and joint disease progression, challenges remain, and there is a growing awareness that prophylaxis may also benefit vulnerable patients with mild/moderate haemophilia. The ultimate treatment goal for haemophilia is the absence of joint bleeds, and ensuing joint disease and arthropathy, for all. Members of the Zurich Haemophilia Forum convened for their tenth meeting in November 2012 to discuss current and future treatments for haemophilia and the aims to mitigate disease severity and prevent arthropathy. In particular, discussions regarding the concept of an optimal trough level - what this should be and how to achieve it (now and in the future) for haemophilia patients without inhibitors - are summarised in this report.

Beyond patient benefit: clinical development in hemophilia.

Abstract Historically in hemophilia, outcome measures have not been collected systematically. Hence, there are insufficient clearly defined, evidence-based measures that can be applied consistently across hemophilia trials. This review focuses on some key challenges to evaluating patient outcomes and performing trials identified by experts at the Fourth and Fifth Zurich Haemophilia Forums. As procedures appear inconsistent across Europe, guidelines require modification to be more appropriate and/or realistically achievable. The outcome measures utilized, and the timing of their collection, should also be standardized, and more objective measures used where feasible. Implementation of outcome measures could be refined through greater understanding of patient heterogeneity, and tailored to differentiate between hemophilia- and aging-related disease effects. Furthermore, robust outcome measures that can also inform health-economic decisions are increasingly needed. Lastly, as patient recruitment poses a challenge, the panel proposed a call for action to motivate physicians and patients to participate in clinical trials.

Tailoring care to haemophilia patients' needs: which specialty and when?

To optimise care for patients with haemophilia, more is required than simply the prompt treatment of an acute bleed; to improve patients’ health and quality of life, the management of patients with haemophilia should also encompass psychosocial support, the prevention of bleeding and joint damage and the avoidance or management of disease and treatment complications such as inhibitor development or the possibility of blood-borne infections1. There is also a growing recognition that patients with haemophilia exhibit significant heterogeneity in terms of their clinical phenotype and response to treatment, and it should be remembered that, “there are not diseases but only patients”. Hence, to optimise treatment, the management should be considered on an individual basis and tailored to each patient and his needs. The European Haemophilia Network (EUHANET) has published management guidelines and the criteria that must be met for centres to be classified as either European Haemophilia Treatment Centres or Comprehensive Care Centres2. In this respect, the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) recommends that the wide range and changing needs of patients and their families are best met through a multidisciplinary, comprehensive care team1. This team should comprise a medical director (preferably a paediatrician and/ or adult haematologist), a nurse co-ordinator and musculoskeletal, laboratory and psychosocial health experts. The comprehensive care team should also include, or have access to, other specialists including those with expertise in infectious diseases, chronic pain, hepatology, immunology and genetics1,2. However, results from a UK national audit3 and European surveys4,5 show that not all patients receive a high standard of comprehensive care, and many centres have limited or no access to the recommended specialists (Figure 1). Figure 1 Access to specialist care for people with bleeding disorders: results reported in a survey of 35 European centres5. Members of the Zurich Haemophilia Forum convened for their 12th meeting in November 2013 to discuss the components of the comprehensive care team and the importance of certain specialists in the optimisation of patients’ care and treatment outcome. In addition, they reviewed the changing needs of patients with haemophilia over time, especially as the increased life expectancy now achieved with modern care has resulted in a growing population of elderly patients, and considered how patients’ care should be tailored and adjusted according to these changing needs. This article summarises their discussions and recommendations.