User login
Beta-thalassemia: Benefits of gene therapy outweigh costs
Surveyed at 3 years, patients also reported ongoing benefits from treatment, including positive impacts on employment, school attendance, and physical activity, according to a second report.
The findings address a major question about betibeglogene autotemcel: Its durability. The therapy is priced at over $2 million per treatment, based on the premise that it will benefit patients in the long-term, in part by offsetting the cost of ongoing transfusions. Therefore, proof of long-standing benefit is important.
The Food and Drug Administration approved betibeglogene autotemcel in August 2022 for children and adults with transfusion dependent beta-thalassemia, a condition that causes patients to have absent or reduced levels of hemoglobin due to mutations in the beta-globin gene. Patients typically require transfusions every 2-5 weeks.
The treatment inserts functional copies of the mutated gene into the patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus. The cells are then transfused back into the patient.
As of August 2021, 63 patients had undergone treatment and been followed for a median of 41.4 months. So far, durability looks solid.
“We now have up to 8 years efficacy and safety follow-up” with beti-cel. “Patients experience durable transfusion independence,” said Mark Walters, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who presented the long-term efficacy data at the meeting.
Overall, 89.5% of patients (34/38) in phase 3 testing achieved transfusion independence, meaning that they had hemoglobin levels of at least 9 g/dL without transfusions for a year or more.
The response rate was an improvement over phase 1/2 testing, in which 68% of subjects (15/22) became transfusion free. Improvements in the manufacturing process led to better outcomes in phase 3, Dr. Walters said.
As for quality of life (QoL), improvement “continues through 3 years following treatment,” said Franco Locatelli, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, who led the QoL study.
When patients who achieved transfusion independence were surveyed 3 years after treatment, 93% of adults were employed or able to seek employment, up from 67% before treatment. School absences were down among children, almost half of subjects no longer needed symptom management, and 81% reported improvements in physical activity.
There were also improvements on various quality of life scales, including in physical functioning and mental health.
Patient age and underlying thalassemia genotype had no impact on the likelihood of transfusion independence. Those who achieved it also had reductions in markers of ineffective erythropoiesis and iron overload.
On multivariate analysis, the greatest predictor of transfusion independence was having at least 62% of cells transduced prior to reintroduction to the patient.
As for adverse events, seven subjects (11%) developed severe veno-occlusive liver disease that resolved with supportive care. Mucositis and febrile neutropenia are also a concern and related to the busulfan conditioning regimen.
No malignancies, insertional oncogenesis, or lentivirus replication have been observed.
The studies were funded by beti-cel maker Bluebird Bio, and many of the investigators are employees. Others reported ties to Bluebird and a range of other companies. Among his industry ties, Dr. Locatelli is a speaker for Bluebird. Dr. Walters also had industry relationships, but didn’t report any ties to Bluebird.
Surveyed at 3 years, patients also reported ongoing benefits from treatment, including positive impacts on employment, school attendance, and physical activity, according to a second report.
The findings address a major question about betibeglogene autotemcel: Its durability. The therapy is priced at over $2 million per treatment, based on the premise that it will benefit patients in the long-term, in part by offsetting the cost of ongoing transfusions. Therefore, proof of long-standing benefit is important.
The Food and Drug Administration approved betibeglogene autotemcel in August 2022 for children and adults with transfusion dependent beta-thalassemia, a condition that causes patients to have absent or reduced levels of hemoglobin due to mutations in the beta-globin gene. Patients typically require transfusions every 2-5 weeks.
The treatment inserts functional copies of the mutated gene into the patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus. The cells are then transfused back into the patient.
As of August 2021, 63 patients had undergone treatment and been followed for a median of 41.4 months. So far, durability looks solid.
“We now have up to 8 years efficacy and safety follow-up” with beti-cel. “Patients experience durable transfusion independence,” said Mark Walters, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who presented the long-term efficacy data at the meeting.
Overall, 89.5% of patients (34/38) in phase 3 testing achieved transfusion independence, meaning that they had hemoglobin levels of at least 9 g/dL without transfusions for a year or more.
The response rate was an improvement over phase 1/2 testing, in which 68% of subjects (15/22) became transfusion free. Improvements in the manufacturing process led to better outcomes in phase 3, Dr. Walters said.
As for quality of life (QoL), improvement “continues through 3 years following treatment,” said Franco Locatelli, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, who led the QoL study.
When patients who achieved transfusion independence were surveyed 3 years after treatment, 93% of adults were employed or able to seek employment, up from 67% before treatment. School absences were down among children, almost half of subjects no longer needed symptom management, and 81% reported improvements in physical activity.
There were also improvements on various quality of life scales, including in physical functioning and mental health.
Patient age and underlying thalassemia genotype had no impact on the likelihood of transfusion independence. Those who achieved it also had reductions in markers of ineffective erythropoiesis and iron overload.
On multivariate analysis, the greatest predictor of transfusion independence was having at least 62% of cells transduced prior to reintroduction to the patient.
As for adverse events, seven subjects (11%) developed severe veno-occlusive liver disease that resolved with supportive care. Mucositis and febrile neutropenia are also a concern and related to the busulfan conditioning regimen.
No malignancies, insertional oncogenesis, or lentivirus replication have been observed.
The studies were funded by beti-cel maker Bluebird Bio, and many of the investigators are employees. Others reported ties to Bluebird and a range of other companies. Among his industry ties, Dr. Locatelli is a speaker for Bluebird. Dr. Walters also had industry relationships, but didn’t report any ties to Bluebird.
Surveyed at 3 years, patients also reported ongoing benefits from treatment, including positive impacts on employment, school attendance, and physical activity, according to a second report.
The findings address a major question about betibeglogene autotemcel: Its durability. The therapy is priced at over $2 million per treatment, based on the premise that it will benefit patients in the long-term, in part by offsetting the cost of ongoing transfusions. Therefore, proof of long-standing benefit is important.
The Food and Drug Administration approved betibeglogene autotemcel in August 2022 for children and adults with transfusion dependent beta-thalassemia, a condition that causes patients to have absent or reduced levels of hemoglobin due to mutations in the beta-globin gene. Patients typically require transfusions every 2-5 weeks.
The treatment inserts functional copies of the mutated gene into the patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus. The cells are then transfused back into the patient.
As of August 2021, 63 patients had undergone treatment and been followed for a median of 41.4 months. So far, durability looks solid.
“We now have up to 8 years efficacy and safety follow-up” with beti-cel. “Patients experience durable transfusion independence,” said Mark Walters, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who presented the long-term efficacy data at the meeting.
Overall, 89.5% of patients (34/38) in phase 3 testing achieved transfusion independence, meaning that they had hemoglobin levels of at least 9 g/dL without transfusions for a year or more.
The response rate was an improvement over phase 1/2 testing, in which 68% of subjects (15/22) became transfusion free. Improvements in the manufacturing process led to better outcomes in phase 3, Dr. Walters said.
As for quality of life (QoL), improvement “continues through 3 years following treatment,” said Franco Locatelli, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, who led the QoL study.
When patients who achieved transfusion independence were surveyed 3 years after treatment, 93% of adults were employed or able to seek employment, up from 67% before treatment. School absences were down among children, almost half of subjects no longer needed symptom management, and 81% reported improvements in physical activity.
There were also improvements on various quality of life scales, including in physical functioning and mental health.
Patient age and underlying thalassemia genotype had no impact on the likelihood of transfusion independence. Those who achieved it also had reductions in markers of ineffective erythropoiesis and iron overload.
On multivariate analysis, the greatest predictor of transfusion independence was having at least 62% of cells transduced prior to reintroduction to the patient.
As for adverse events, seven subjects (11%) developed severe veno-occlusive liver disease that resolved with supportive care. Mucositis and febrile neutropenia are also a concern and related to the busulfan conditioning regimen.
No malignancies, insertional oncogenesis, or lentivirus replication have been observed.
The studies were funded by beti-cel maker Bluebird Bio, and many of the investigators are employees. Others reported ties to Bluebird and a range of other companies. Among his industry ties, Dr. Locatelli is a speaker for Bluebird. Dr. Walters also had industry relationships, but didn’t report any ties to Bluebird.
FROM ASH 2022
FDA approves first gene therapy for hemophilia B
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
Post Roe, pregnant SCD patients facing “dire” risks
When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.
“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.
The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.
“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”
For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
SCD’s impact on pregnancy
While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”
For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).
According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”
Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.
Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”
In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.
Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
Court ruling limits options in some states
The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.
In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”
In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.
As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.
The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception
As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”
Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”
She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.
When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.
“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.
The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.
“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”
For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
SCD’s impact on pregnancy
While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”
For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).
According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”
Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.
Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”
In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.
Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
Court ruling limits options in some states
The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.
In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”
In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.
As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.
The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception
As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”
Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”
She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.
When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.
“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.
The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.
“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”
For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
SCD’s impact on pregnancy
While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”
For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).
According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”
Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.
Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”
In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.
Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
Court ruling limits options in some states
The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.
In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”
In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.
As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.
The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception
As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”
Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”
She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.
Royal family affliction or not, porphyria is treatable
European royal families may be enormously rich, but being a blueblood doesn’t always mean your blood is pristine. Queen Victoria’s DNA is famously believed to have silently bequeathed hemophilia to many of her descendants, including a great-grandson whose severe illness played a tragic role in spurring the Russian Revolution.
And that’s not all.
There’s plenty of skepticism about this theory, which seeks to explain the “madness” of King George III. But one thing is clear. If porphyria does indeed haunt the imperial bloodline that stretches to a new generation – the late Queen Elizabeth II’s great-grandchildren – any royal who’s afflicted going forward is likely to benefit mightily from modern treatment. While this disease may require lifelong vigilance, experts said in interviews that porphyria can often be controlled.
“If patients know they have the diagnosis, and they do the right things and avoid alcohol and risky drugs, most people will have few acute attacks,” said gastroenterologist Herbert Lloyd Bonkovsky, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., a leading porphyria specialist.
Heme infusions can also be helpful, he added, and the revolutionary new drug givosiran is available for those who suffer recurrent attacks. And “if all else fails, a successful liver transplant is curative” – as long as the transplanted liver doesn’t have porphyria, as happened in at least one case.
But, Dr. Bonkovsky cautioned, the diagnosis is often missed, in some cases for 15 years or more.
Diagnosing porphyria: Awareness and tests are crucial
Porphyria is caused when porphyins – essential components of hemoglobin – build up in the body, disrupting systems such as the nerves, skin, and gut. The urine can turn purplish, hence the condition’s name. (Porphyrus is the Greek word for purple.)
According to hematologist Danielle Nance, MD, of Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Gilbert, Ariz., acute intermittent porphyria “should be suspected in persons who have recurrent severe attacks of abdominal pain requiring strong pain medication to control symptoms, and there is no obvious physical cause.”
In such cases, practitioners should send out blood and urine for porphobilinogen (PBG) and delta-aminolevulinic acid (dALA or Delta-ALA) testing, Dr. Nance said. “These are almost always elevated, even between attacks, in persons with diagnoses of acute intermittent porphyria. Other types of porphyria, such as erythropoietic porphyria, may require additional testing. Genetic testing should be offered when a patient is suspected of having porphyria, as this can speed the diagnosis.”
The typical patient is a woman from age 18 to 55, often a young woman with recurrent abdominal pain that may occur during the second half of the menstrual cycle, Wake Forest’s Dr. Bonkovsky said. Constipation is common.
“She keeps coming to the clinic or emergency department, and no one knows what’s going on. Eventually, she tends to undergo an appendectomy, often a cholecystectomy, or sometimes gynecologic procedures without cure of the disease. Only after this long and arduous road of misdiagnosis does someone think it’s porphyria and do the correct tests.”
Dr. Bonkovsky led a 2014 study of 108 subjects (81% female) with acute porphyrias and found that the average time to a correct diagnosis was a whopping 15 years. Pain in the abdomen was the most common symptom (74%), followed by nausea/vomiting (73%), weakness (63%), and constipation (60%).
While underdiagnosis is common, porphyrias can also be overdiagnosed. According to Dr. Bonkovsky, a mild increase in urinary porphyrins is often misdiagnosed as porphyria when it may be a sign of liver disease or alcohol use, instead.
Hematologist Kleber Y. Fertrin, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, emphasized the importance of ordering the correct tests. “Urinary porphyrins are often inappropriately ordered because of their name. They are not diagnostic for acute hepatic porphyrias and may be nonspecifically elevated. It is paramount to get the labs from a reliable lab test experienced at performing diagnostic testing for porphyrias and make sure the urine sample needed is correctly obtained and preserved.”
New drug can control attacks, but it’s costly
Treatment should begin right away if porphyria is suspected, without waiting for confirmation, Dr. Nance said. “There are porphyria experts in the U.S. and in many other countries who can help practitioners interpret symptoms and testing results if there is uncertainty or if treatment options are unclear.”
Patients are counseled to avoid attack triggers and eat healthy diets, she said. “Persons with porphyria are encouraged to have a plan for home management of an attack and when to come to the hospital for symptoms that don’t respond to home therapy,” she said.
Dr. Fertrin said “the typical treatment for an acute porphyric attack is the use of intravenous glucose, as well as intravenous hemin infusions, along with pain medications and fluids as needed. Some patients may need medication for high blood pressure. For patients with recurrent attacks, prophylactic doses of hemin can be used.”
Another option is givosiran (Givlaari), the biggest recent advance in porphyria treatment. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute hepatic porphyria in 2019. “It’s an inhibitory mRNA that shuts down heme synthesis by downregulating aminolevulinic acid synthase,” said hematologist Thomas DeLoughery, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
A 2020 study coauthored by Dr. Bonkovsky found that the drug reduced the mean annualized attack rate in acute intermittent porphyria by 74%, compared with placebo (P < .001). “Givosiran led to lower levels of urinary ALA and porphobilinogen, fewer days of hemin use, and better daily scores for pain than placebo,” the study authors write. “Key adverse events that were observed more frequently in the givosiran group were elevations in serum aminotransferase levels, changes in serum creatinine levels and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, and injection-site reactions.”
Dr. Bonkovsky said the drug is appropriate in patients whose disease is not controlled by lifestyle interventions regarding alcohol, smoking, and substance use. However, while givosiran is helpful, “it’s not a cure,” he said. “Probably about 40% of patients have found the side effects such as nausea, fatigue, headaches, and liver injury to be too adverse and have not decided to take it in the long term.”
In addition, the drug costs about $500,000 a year, and insurers may balk at the expense. Still, specialists say it can be a good option. “Before givosiran, the standard therapy was hematin, which decreased the activity of the ALA synthase,” Dr. DeLoughery said. “This is a nasty drug that can inflame the blood vessels and is not all that effective.”
The royal family may be able to breathe easy
There are other forms of porphyria besides the acute type. Cutaneous porphryias can cause blistering from sunlight exposure, and treatment is avoidance of such triggers, Dr. Fertin said. “For a rare form called erythropoietic protoporphyria, there is a subcutaneous implant with a medication called afamelanotide that increases tolerance to sunlight.”
There’s another type: variegate porphyria, which UpToDate says is “characterized by cutaneous blistering and/or acute neurovisceral attacks.” In 1966, a mother-and-son psychiatrist team theorized that Britain’s King George III suffered from this type of porphyria.
However, researchers have sharply criticized the porphyria theory with regard to that king, and a recent theory now suggests that he actually had bipolar disorder. Dr. Fertin is among the skeptics, noting the high prevalence of porphyria in affected families.
“Since King George III would now have a living number of relatives of about 900 people, we would expect around 180 cases of variegate porphyria to be connected to him, and those are nowhere to be found,” he said. “The idea that it could cause progressive psychosis and dementia is also a misconception. We do not find that porphyria is the underlying cause of psychiatric conditions on their own. Many atypical symptoms of the king were attributed to variegate porphyria, and the few more typical symptoms he reportedly had, of abdominal pain and urine discoloration, can be more easily explained by common diseases, such as kidney stones or gallstones. Finally, attempts at obtaining genetic or biochemical evidence of porphyria from relatives of King George III have been negative or inconclusive.”
That’s good news for the royals, who have many other concerns these days.
Dr. Nance discloses research study funding from Alnylam (maker of Givlaari) and payments to participate in educational activities for patients and practitioners. Dr. Bonkovsky discloses relationships with drugmakers who have developed products to treat porphyria including Alnylam, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Recordati, and Disc. Dr. Fertin is subinvestigator in a clinical trial for a novel treatment for erythropoietic protoporphyria sponsored by Mitsubishi Tanabe. Dr. DeLoughery reports no disclosures.
European royal families may be enormously rich, but being a blueblood doesn’t always mean your blood is pristine. Queen Victoria’s DNA is famously believed to have silently bequeathed hemophilia to many of her descendants, including a great-grandson whose severe illness played a tragic role in spurring the Russian Revolution.
And that’s not all.
There’s plenty of skepticism about this theory, which seeks to explain the “madness” of King George III. But one thing is clear. If porphyria does indeed haunt the imperial bloodline that stretches to a new generation – the late Queen Elizabeth II’s great-grandchildren – any royal who’s afflicted going forward is likely to benefit mightily from modern treatment. While this disease may require lifelong vigilance, experts said in interviews that porphyria can often be controlled.
“If patients know they have the diagnosis, and they do the right things and avoid alcohol and risky drugs, most people will have few acute attacks,” said gastroenterologist Herbert Lloyd Bonkovsky, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., a leading porphyria specialist.
Heme infusions can also be helpful, he added, and the revolutionary new drug givosiran is available for those who suffer recurrent attacks. And “if all else fails, a successful liver transplant is curative” – as long as the transplanted liver doesn’t have porphyria, as happened in at least one case.
But, Dr. Bonkovsky cautioned, the diagnosis is often missed, in some cases for 15 years or more.
Diagnosing porphyria: Awareness and tests are crucial
Porphyria is caused when porphyins – essential components of hemoglobin – build up in the body, disrupting systems such as the nerves, skin, and gut. The urine can turn purplish, hence the condition’s name. (Porphyrus is the Greek word for purple.)
According to hematologist Danielle Nance, MD, of Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Gilbert, Ariz., acute intermittent porphyria “should be suspected in persons who have recurrent severe attacks of abdominal pain requiring strong pain medication to control symptoms, and there is no obvious physical cause.”
In such cases, practitioners should send out blood and urine for porphobilinogen (PBG) and delta-aminolevulinic acid (dALA or Delta-ALA) testing, Dr. Nance said. “These are almost always elevated, even between attacks, in persons with diagnoses of acute intermittent porphyria. Other types of porphyria, such as erythropoietic porphyria, may require additional testing. Genetic testing should be offered when a patient is suspected of having porphyria, as this can speed the diagnosis.”
The typical patient is a woman from age 18 to 55, often a young woman with recurrent abdominal pain that may occur during the second half of the menstrual cycle, Wake Forest’s Dr. Bonkovsky said. Constipation is common.
“She keeps coming to the clinic or emergency department, and no one knows what’s going on. Eventually, she tends to undergo an appendectomy, often a cholecystectomy, or sometimes gynecologic procedures without cure of the disease. Only after this long and arduous road of misdiagnosis does someone think it’s porphyria and do the correct tests.”
Dr. Bonkovsky led a 2014 study of 108 subjects (81% female) with acute porphyrias and found that the average time to a correct diagnosis was a whopping 15 years. Pain in the abdomen was the most common symptom (74%), followed by nausea/vomiting (73%), weakness (63%), and constipation (60%).
While underdiagnosis is common, porphyrias can also be overdiagnosed. According to Dr. Bonkovsky, a mild increase in urinary porphyrins is often misdiagnosed as porphyria when it may be a sign of liver disease or alcohol use, instead.
Hematologist Kleber Y. Fertrin, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, emphasized the importance of ordering the correct tests. “Urinary porphyrins are often inappropriately ordered because of their name. They are not diagnostic for acute hepatic porphyrias and may be nonspecifically elevated. It is paramount to get the labs from a reliable lab test experienced at performing diagnostic testing for porphyrias and make sure the urine sample needed is correctly obtained and preserved.”
New drug can control attacks, but it’s costly
Treatment should begin right away if porphyria is suspected, without waiting for confirmation, Dr. Nance said. “There are porphyria experts in the U.S. and in many other countries who can help practitioners interpret symptoms and testing results if there is uncertainty or if treatment options are unclear.”
Patients are counseled to avoid attack triggers and eat healthy diets, she said. “Persons with porphyria are encouraged to have a plan for home management of an attack and when to come to the hospital for symptoms that don’t respond to home therapy,” she said.
Dr. Fertrin said “the typical treatment for an acute porphyric attack is the use of intravenous glucose, as well as intravenous hemin infusions, along with pain medications and fluids as needed. Some patients may need medication for high blood pressure. For patients with recurrent attacks, prophylactic doses of hemin can be used.”
Another option is givosiran (Givlaari), the biggest recent advance in porphyria treatment. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute hepatic porphyria in 2019. “It’s an inhibitory mRNA that shuts down heme synthesis by downregulating aminolevulinic acid synthase,” said hematologist Thomas DeLoughery, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
A 2020 study coauthored by Dr. Bonkovsky found that the drug reduced the mean annualized attack rate in acute intermittent porphyria by 74%, compared with placebo (P < .001). “Givosiran led to lower levels of urinary ALA and porphobilinogen, fewer days of hemin use, and better daily scores for pain than placebo,” the study authors write. “Key adverse events that were observed more frequently in the givosiran group were elevations in serum aminotransferase levels, changes in serum creatinine levels and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, and injection-site reactions.”
Dr. Bonkovsky said the drug is appropriate in patients whose disease is not controlled by lifestyle interventions regarding alcohol, smoking, and substance use. However, while givosiran is helpful, “it’s not a cure,” he said. “Probably about 40% of patients have found the side effects such as nausea, fatigue, headaches, and liver injury to be too adverse and have not decided to take it in the long term.”
In addition, the drug costs about $500,000 a year, and insurers may balk at the expense. Still, specialists say it can be a good option. “Before givosiran, the standard therapy was hematin, which decreased the activity of the ALA synthase,” Dr. DeLoughery said. “This is a nasty drug that can inflame the blood vessels and is not all that effective.”
The royal family may be able to breathe easy
There are other forms of porphyria besides the acute type. Cutaneous porphryias can cause blistering from sunlight exposure, and treatment is avoidance of such triggers, Dr. Fertin said. “For a rare form called erythropoietic protoporphyria, there is a subcutaneous implant with a medication called afamelanotide that increases tolerance to sunlight.”
There’s another type: variegate porphyria, which UpToDate says is “characterized by cutaneous blistering and/or acute neurovisceral attacks.” In 1966, a mother-and-son psychiatrist team theorized that Britain’s King George III suffered from this type of porphyria.
However, researchers have sharply criticized the porphyria theory with regard to that king, and a recent theory now suggests that he actually had bipolar disorder. Dr. Fertin is among the skeptics, noting the high prevalence of porphyria in affected families.
“Since King George III would now have a living number of relatives of about 900 people, we would expect around 180 cases of variegate porphyria to be connected to him, and those are nowhere to be found,” he said. “The idea that it could cause progressive psychosis and dementia is also a misconception. We do not find that porphyria is the underlying cause of psychiatric conditions on their own. Many atypical symptoms of the king were attributed to variegate porphyria, and the few more typical symptoms he reportedly had, of abdominal pain and urine discoloration, can be more easily explained by common diseases, such as kidney stones or gallstones. Finally, attempts at obtaining genetic or biochemical evidence of porphyria from relatives of King George III have been negative or inconclusive.”
That’s good news for the royals, who have many other concerns these days.
Dr. Nance discloses research study funding from Alnylam (maker of Givlaari) and payments to participate in educational activities for patients and practitioners. Dr. Bonkovsky discloses relationships with drugmakers who have developed products to treat porphyria including Alnylam, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Recordati, and Disc. Dr. Fertin is subinvestigator in a clinical trial for a novel treatment for erythropoietic protoporphyria sponsored by Mitsubishi Tanabe. Dr. DeLoughery reports no disclosures.
European royal families may be enormously rich, but being a blueblood doesn’t always mean your blood is pristine. Queen Victoria’s DNA is famously believed to have silently bequeathed hemophilia to many of her descendants, including a great-grandson whose severe illness played a tragic role in spurring the Russian Revolution.
And that’s not all.
There’s plenty of skepticism about this theory, which seeks to explain the “madness” of King George III. But one thing is clear. If porphyria does indeed haunt the imperial bloodline that stretches to a new generation – the late Queen Elizabeth II’s great-grandchildren – any royal who’s afflicted going forward is likely to benefit mightily from modern treatment. While this disease may require lifelong vigilance, experts said in interviews that porphyria can often be controlled.
“If patients know they have the diagnosis, and they do the right things and avoid alcohol and risky drugs, most people will have few acute attacks,” said gastroenterologist Herbert Lloyd Bonkovsky, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., a leading porphyria specialist.
Heme infusions can also be helpful, he added, and the revolutionary new drug givosiran is available for those who suffer recurrent attacks. And “if all else fails, a successful liver transplant is curative” – as long as the transplanted liver doesn’t have porphyria, as happened in at least one case.
But, Dr. Bonkovsky cautioned, the diagnosis is often missed, in some cases for 15 years or more.
Diagnosing porphyria: Awareness and tests are crucial
Porphyria is caused when porphyins – essential components of hemoglobin – build up in the body, disrupting systems such as the nerves, skin, and gut. The urine can turn purplish, hence the condition’s name. (Porphyrus is the Greek word for purple.)
According to hematologist Danielle Nance, MD, of Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Gilbert, Ariz., acute intermittent porphyria “should be suspected in persons who have recurrent severe attacks of abdominal pain requiring strong pain medication to control symptoms, and there is no obvious physical cause.”
In such cases, practitioners should send out blood and urine for porphobilinogen (PBG) and delta-aminolevulinic acid (dALA or Delta-ALA) testing, Dr. Nance said. “These are almost always elevated, even between attacks, in persons with diagnoses of acute intermittent porphyria. Other types of porphyria, such as erythropoietic porphyria, may require additional testing. Genetic testing should be offered when a patient is suspected of having porphyria, as this can speed the diagnosis.”
The typical patient is a woman from age 18 to 55, often a young woman with recurrent abdominal pain that may occur during the second half of the menstrual cycle, Wake Forest’s Dr. Bonkovsky said. Constipation is common.
“She keeps coming to the clinic or emergency department, and no one knows what’s going on. Eventually, she tends to undergo an appendectomy, often a cholecystectomy, or sometimes gynecologic procedures without cure of the disease. Only after this long and arduous road of misdiagnosis does someone think it’s porphyria and do the correct tests.”
Dr. Bonkovsky led a 2014 study of 108 subjects (81% female) with acute porphyrias and found that the average time to a correct diagnosis was a whopping 15 years. Pain in the abdomen was the most common symptom (74%), followed by nausea/vomiting (73%), weakness (63%), and constipation (60%).
While underdiagnosis is common, porphyrias can also be overdiagnosed. According to Dr. Bonkovsky, a mild increase in urinary porphyrins is often misdiagnosed as porphyria when it may be a sign of liver disease or alcohol use, instead.
Hematologist Kleber Y. Fertrin, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, emphasized the importance of ordering the correct tests. “Urinary porphyrins are often inappropriately ordered because of their name. They are not diagnostic for acute hepatic porphyrias and may be nonspecifically elevated. It is paramount to get the labs from a reliable lab test experienced at performing diagnostic testing for porphyrias and make sure the urine sample needed is correctly obtained and preserved.”
New drug can control attacks, but it’s costly
Treatment should begin right away if porphyria is suspected, without waiting for confirmation, Dr. Nance said. “There are porphyria experts in the U.S. and in many other countries who can help practitioners interpret symptoms and testing results if there is uncertainty or if treatment options are unclear.”
Patients are counseled to avoid attack triggers and eat healthy diets, she said. “Persons with porphyria are encouraged to have a plan for home management of an attack and when to come to the hospital for symptoms that don’t respond to home therapy,” she said.
Dr. Fertrin said “the typical treatment for an acute porphyric attack is the use of intravenous glucose, as well as intravenous hemin infusions, along with pain medications and fluids as needed. Some patients may need medication for high blood pressure. For patients with recurrent attacks, prophylactic doses of hemin can be used.”
Another option is givosiran (Givlaari), the biggest recent advance in porphyria treatment. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute hepatic porphyria in 2019. “It’s an inhibitory mRNA that shuts down heme synthesis by downregulating aminolevulinic acid synthase,” said hematologist Thomas DeLoughery, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
A 2020 study coauthored by Dr. Bonkovsky found that the drug reduced the mean annualized attack rate in acute intermittent porphyria by 74%, compared with placebo (P < .001). “Givosiran led to lower levels of urinary ALA and porphobilinogen, fewer days of hemin use, and better daily scores for pain than placebo,” the study authors write. “Key adverse events that were observed more frequently in the givosiran group were elevations in serum aminotransferase levels, changes in serum creatinine levels and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, and injection-site reactions.”
Dr. Bonkovsky said the drug is appropriate in patients whose disease is not controlled by lifestyle interventions regarding alcohol, smoking, and substance use. However, while givosiran is helpful, “it’s not a cure,” he said. “Probably about 40% of patients have found the side effects such as nausea, fatigue, headaches, and liver injury to be too adverse and have not decided to take it in the long term.”
In addition, the drug costs about $500,000 a year, and insurers may balk at the expense. Still, specialists say it can be a good option. “Before givosiran, the standard therapy was hematin, which decreased the activity of the ALA synthase,” Dr. DeLoughery said. “This is a nasty drug that can inflame the blood vessels and is not all that effective.”
The royal family may be able to breathe easy
There are other forms of porphyria besides the acute type. Cutaneous porphryias can cause blistering from sunlight exposure, and treatment is avoidance of such triggers, Dr. Fertin said. “For a rare form called erythropoietic protoporphyria, there is a subcutaneous implant with a medication called afamelanotide that increases tolerance to sunlight.”
There’s another type: variegate porphyria, which UpToDate says is “characterized by cutaneous blistering and/or acute neurovisceral attacks.” In 1966, a mother-and-son psychiatrist team theorized that Britain’s King George III suffered from this type of porphyria.
However, researchers have sharply criticized the porphyria theory with regard to that king, and a recent theory now suggests that he actually had bipolar disorder. Dr. Fertin is among the skeptics, noting the high prevalence of porphyria in affected families.
“Since King George III would now have a living number of relatives of about 900 people, we would expect around 180 cases of variegate porphyria to be connected to him, and those are nowhere to be found,” he said. “The idea that it could cause progressive psychosis and dementia is also a misconception. We do not find that porphyria is the underlying cause of psychiatric conditions on their own. Many atypical symptoms of the king were attributed to variegate porphyria, and the few more typical symptoms he reportedly had, of abdominal pain and urine discoloration, can be more easily explained by common diseases, such as kidney stones or gallstones. Finally, attempts at obtaining genetic or biochemical evidence of porphyria from relatives of King George III have been negative or inconclusive.”
That’s good news for the royals, who have many other concerns these days.
Dr. Nance discloses research study funding from Alnylam (maker of Givlaari) and payments to participate in educational activities for patients and practitioners. Dr. Bonkovsky discloses relationships with drugmakers who have developed products to treat porphyria including Alnylam, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Recordati, and Disc. Dr. Fertin is subinvestigator in a clinical trial for a novel treatment for erythropoietic protoporphyria sponsored by Mitsubishi Tanabe. Dr. DeLoughery reports no disclosures.
AAP guidance helps distinguish bleeding disorders from abuse
In some cases, bruising or bleeding from bleeding disorders may look like signs of child abuse, but new guidance may help clinicians distinguish one from the other.
On Sept. 19 the American Academy of Pediatrics published two reports – a clinical report and a technical report – in the October 2022 issue of Pediatrics on evaluating for bleeding disorders when child abuse is suspected.
The reports were written by the AAP Section on Hematology/Oncology and the AAP Council on Child Abuse and Neglect.
One doesn’t rule out the other
The reports emphasize that laboratory testing of bleeding cannot always rule out abuse, just as a history of trauma (accidental or nonaccidental) may not rule out a bleeding disorder or other medical condition.
In the clinical report, led by James Anderst, MD, MSCI, with the division of child adversity and resilience, Children’s Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri–Kansas City, the researchers note that infants are at especially high risk of abusive bruising/bleeding, but bleeding disorders may also present in infancy.
The authors give an example of a situation when taking a thorough history won’t necessarily rule out a bleeding disorder: Male infants who have been circumcised with no significant bleeding issues may still have a bleeding disorder. Therefore, laboratory evaluations are often needed to detect disordered bleeding.
Children’s medications should be documented, the authors note, because certain drugs, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, some antibiotics, antiepileptics, and herbal supplements, can affect tests that might be used to detect bleeding disorders.
Likewise, asking about restrictive or unusual diets or alternative therapies is important as some could increase the likelihood of bleeding/bruising.
Signs that bleeding disorder is not likely
The authors advise that, if a child has any of the following, an evaluation for a bleeding disorder is generally not needed:
- Caregivers’ description of trauma sufficiently explains the bruising.
- The child or an independent witness can provide a history of abuse or nonabusive trauma that explains the bruising.
- The outline of the bruising follows an object or hand pattern.
- The location of the bruising is on the ears, neck, or genitals.
“Bruising to the ears, neck, or genitals is rarely seen in either accidental injuries or in children with bleeding disorders,” the authors write.
Specification of which locations for injuries are more indicative of abuse in both mobile and immobile children was among the most important information from the paper, Seattle pediatrician Timothy Joos, MD, said in an interview.
Also very helpful, he said, was the listing of which tests should be done if bruising looks like potential abuse.
The authors write that if bruising is concerning for abuse that necessitates evaluation for bleeding disorders, the following tests should be done: PT (prothrombin time); aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time); von Willebrand Factor (VWF) activity (Ristocetin cofactor); factor VIII activity level; factor IX activity level; and a complete blood count, including platelets.
“I think that’s what a lot of us suspected, but there’s not a lot of summary evidence regarding that until now,” Dr. Joos said.
Case-by-case decisions on when to test
The decision on whether to evaluate for a bleeding disorder may be made case by case.
If there is no obvious known trauma or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), particularly subdural hematoma (SDH) in a nonmobile child, abuse should be suspected, the authors write.
They acknowledge that children can have ICH, such as a small SDH or an epidural hematoma, under the point of impact from a short fall.
“However,” the authors write, “short falls rarely result in significant brain injury.”
Conditions may affect screening tests
Screening tests for bleeding disorders can be falsely positive or falsely negative, the authors caution in the technical report, led by Shannon Carpenter, MD, MS, with the department of pediatrics, University of Missouri–Kansas City.
- If coagulation laboratory test specimens sit in a hot metal box all day, for instance, factor levels may be falsely low, the authors explain.
- Conversely, factors such as VWF and factor VIII are acute-phase reactants and factor levels will be deceptively high if blood specimens are taken in a stressful time.
- Patients who have a traumatic brain injury often show temporary coagulopathy that does not signal a congenital disorder.
Vitamin K deficiency
The technical report explains that if an infant, typically younger than 6 months, presents with bleeding/bruising that raises flags for abuse and has a long PT, clinicians should confirm vitamin K was provided at birth and/or testing for vitamin K deficiency should be performed.
Not all states require vitamin K to be administered at birth and some parents refuse it. Deficiency can lead to bleeding in the skin or from mucosal surfaces from circumcision, generalized ecchymoses, and large intramuscular hemorrhages or ICH.
When infants don’t get vitamin K at birth, vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) is seen most often in the first days of life, the technical report states. It can also occur 1-3 months after birth.
“Late VKDB occurs from the first month to 3 months after birth,” the authors write. “This deficiency is more prevalent in breast-fed babies, because human milk contains less vitamin K than does cow milk.”
Overall, the authors write, extensive lab tests are usually not necessary, given the rarity of most bleeding disorders and specific clinical factors that decrease the odds that a bleeding disorder caused the child’s findings.
Dr. Joos said the decisions described in this paper are the kind that can keep pediatricians up at night.
“Any kind of guidance is helpful in these difficult cases,” he said. “These are scenarios that can often happen in the middle of the night, and you’re often struggling with evidence or past experience that can help you make some of these decisions.”
Authors of the reports and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.
In some cases, bruising or bleeding from bleeding disorders may look like signs of child abuse, but new guidance may help clinicians distinguish one from the other.
On Sept. 19 the American Academy of Pediatrics published two reports – a clinical report and a technical report – in the October 2022 issue of Pediatrics on evaluating for bleeding disorders when child abuse is suspected.
The reports were written by the AAP Section on Hematology/Oncology and the AAP Council on Child Abuse and Neglect.
One doesn’t rule out the other
The reports emphasize that laboratory testing of bleeding cannot always rule out abuse, just as a history of trauma (accidental or nonaccidental) may not rule out a bleeding disorder or other medical condition.
In the clinical report, led by James Anderst, MD, MSCI, with the division of child adversity and resilience, Children’s Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri–Kansas City, the researchers note that infants are at especially high risk of abusive bruising/bleeding, but bleeding disorders may also present in infancy.
The authors give an example of a situation when taking a thorough history won’t necessarily rule out a bleeding disorder: Male infants who have been circumcised with no significant bleeding issues may still have a bleeding disorder. Therefore, laboratory evaluations are often needed to detect disordered bleeding.
Children’s medications should be documented, the authors note, because certain drugs, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, some antibiotics, antiepileptics, and herbal supplements, can affect tests that might be used to detect bleeding disorders.
Likewise, asking about restrictive or unusual diets or alternative therapies is important as some could increase the likelihood of bleeding/bruising.
Signs that bleeding disorder is not likely
The authors advise that, if a child has any of the following, an evaluation for a bleeding disorder is generally not needed:
- Caregivers’ description of trauma sufficiently explains the bruising.
- The child or an independent witness can provide a history of abuse or nonabusive trauma that explains the bruising.
- The outline of the bruising follows an object or hand pattern.
- The location of the bruising is on the ears, neck, or genitals.
“Bruising to the ears, neck, or genitals is rarely seen in either accidental injuries or in children with bleeding disorders,” the authors write.
Specification of which locations for injuries are more indicative of abuse in both mobile and immobile children was among the most important information from the paper, Seattle pediatrician Timothy Joos, MD, said in an interview.
Also very helpful, he said, was the listing of which tests should be done if bruising looks like potential abuse.
The authors write that if bruising is concerning for abuse that necessitates evaluation for bleeding disorders, the following tests should be done: PT (prothrombin time); aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time); von Willebrand Factor (VWF) activity (Ristocetin cofactor); factor VIII activity level; factor IX activity level; and a complete blood count, including platelets.
“I think that’s what a lot of us suspected, but there’s not a lot of summary evidence regarding that until now,” Dr. Joos said.
Case-by-case decisions on when to test
The decision on whether to evaluate for a bleeding disorder may be made case by case.
If there is no obvious known trauma or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), particularly subdural hematoma (SDH) in a nonmobile child, abuse should be suspected, the authors write.
They acknowledge that children can have ICH, such as a small SDH or an epidural hematoma, under the point of impact from a short fall.
“However,” the authors write, “short falls rarely result in significant brain injury.”
Conditions may affect screening tests
Screening tests for bleeding disorders can be falsely positive or falsely negative, the authors caution in the technical report, led by Shannon Carpenter, MD, MS, with the department of pediatrics, University of Missouri–Kansas City.
- If coagulation laboratory test specimens sit in a hot metal box all day, for instance, factor levels may be falsely low, the authors explain.
- Conversely, factors such as VWF and factor VIII are acute-phase reactants and factor levels will be deceptively high if blood specimens are taken in a stressful time.
- Patients who have a traumatic brain injury often show temporary coagulopathy that does not signal a congenital disorder.
Vitamin K deficiency
The technical report explains that if an infant, typically younger than 6 months, presents with bleeding/bruising that raises flags for abuse and has a long PT, clinicians should confirm vitamin K was provided at birth and/or testing for vitamin K deficiency should be performed.
Not all states require vitamin K to be administered at birth and some parents refuse it. Deficiency can lead to bleeding in the skin or from mucosal surfaces from circumcision, generalized ecchymoses, and large intramuscular hemorrhages or ICH.
When infants don’t get vitamin K at birth, vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) is seen most often in the first days of life, the technical report states. It can also occur 1-3 months after birth.
“Late VKDB occurs from the first month to 3 months after birth,” the authors write. “This deficiency is more prevalent in breast-fed babies, because human milk contains less vitamin K than does cow milk.”
Overall, the authors write, extensive lab tests are usually not necessary, given the rarity of most bleeding disorders and specific clinical factors that decrease the odds that a bleeding disorder caused the child’s findings.
Dr. Joos said the decisions described in this paper are the kind that can keep pediatricians up at night.
“Any kind of guidance is helpful in these difficult cases,” he said. “These are scenarios that can often happen in the middle of the night, and you’re often struggling with evidence or past experience that can help you make some of these decisions.”
Authors of the reports and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.
In some cases, bruising or bleeding from bleeding disorders may look like signs of child abuse, but new guidance may help clinicians distinguish one from the other.
On Sept. 19 the American Academy of Pediatrics published two reports – a clinical report and a technical report – in the October 2022 issue of Pediatrics on evaluating for bleeding disorders when child abuse is suspected.
The reports were written by the AAP Section on Hematology/Oncology and the AAP Council on Child Abuse and Neglect.
One doesn’t rule out the other
The reports emphasize that laboratory testing of bleeding cannot always rule out abuse, just as a history of trauma (accidental or nonaccidental) may not rule out a bleeding disorder or other medical condition.
In the clinical report, led by James Anderst, MD, MSCI, with the division of child adversity and resilience, Children’s Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri–Kansas City, the researchers note that infants are at especially high risk of abusive bruising/bleeding, but bleeding disorders may also present in infancy.
The authors give an example of a situation when taking a thorough history won’t necessarily rule out a bleeding disorder: Male infants who have been circumcised with no significant bleeding issues may still have a bleeding disorder. Therefore, laboratory evaluations are often needed to detect disordered bleeding.
Children’s medications should be documented, the authors note, because certain drugs, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, some antibiotics, antiepileptics, and herbal supplements, can affect tests that might be used to detect bleeding disorders.
Likewise, asking about restrictive or unusual diets or alternative therapies is important as some could increase the likelihood of bleeding/bruising.
Signs that bleeding disorder is not likely
The authors advise that, if a child has any of the following, an evaluation for a bleeding disorder is generally not needed:
- Caregivers’ description of trauma sufficiently explains the bruising.
- The child or an independent witness can provide a history of abuse or nonabusive trauma that explains the bruising.
- The outline of the bruising follows an object or hand pattern.
- The location of the bruising is on the ears, neck, or genitals.
“Bruising to the ears, neck, or genitals is rarely seen in either accidental injuries or in children with bleeding disorders,” the authors write.
Specification of which locations for injuries are more indicative of abuse in both mobile and immobile children was among the most important information from the paper, Seattle pediatrician Timothy Joos, MD, said in an interview.
Also very helpful, he said, was the listing of which tests should be done if bruising looks like potential abuse.
The authors write that if bruising is concerning for abuse that necessitates evaluation for bleeding disorders, the following tests should be done: PT (prothrombin time); aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time); von Willebrand Factor (VWF) activity (Ristocetin cofactor); factor VIII activity level; factor IX activity level; and a complete blood count, including platelets.
“I think that’s what a lot of us suspected, but there’s not a lot of summary evidence regarding that until now,” Dr. Joos said.
Case-by-case decisions on when to test
The decision on whether to evaluate for a bleeding disorder may be made case by case.
If there is no obvious known trauma or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), particularly subdural hematoma (SDH) in a nonmobile child, abuse should be suspected, the authors write.
They acknowledge that children can have ICH, such as a small SDH or an epidural hematoma, under the point of impact from a short fall.
“However,” the authors write, “short falls rarely result in significant brain injury.”
Conditions may affect screening tests
Screening tests for bleeding disorders can be falsely positive or falsely negative, the authors caution in the technical report, led by Shannon Carpenter, MD, MS, with the department of pediatrics, University of Missouri–Kansas City.
- If coagulation laboratory test specimens sit in a hot metal box all day, for instance, factor levels may be falsely low, the authors explain.
- Conversely, factors such as VWF and factor VIII are acute-phase reactants and factor levels will be deceptively high if blood specimens are taken in a stressful time.
- Patients who have a traumatic brain injury often show temporary coagulopathy that does not signal a congenital disorder.
Vitamin K deficiency
The technical report explains that if an infant, typically younger than 6 months, presents with bleeding/bruising that raises flags for abuse and has a long PT, clinicians should confirm vitamin K was provided at birth and/or testing for vitamin K deficiency should be performed.
Not all states require vitamin K to be administered at birth and some parents refuse it. Deficiency can lead to bleeding in the skin or from mucosal surfaces from circumcision, generalized ecchymoses, and large intramuscular hemorrhages or ICH.
When infants don’t get vitamin K at birth, vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) is seen most often in the first days of life, the technical report states. It can also occur 1-3 months after birth.
“Late VKDB occurs from the first month to 3 months after birth,” the authors write. “This deficiency is more prevalent in breast-fed babies, because human milk contains less vitamin K than does cow milk.”
Overall, the authors write, extensive lab tests are usually not necessary, given the rarity of most bleeding disorders and specific clinical factors that decrease the odds that a bleeding disorder caused the child’s findings.
Dr. Joos said the decisions described in this paper are the kind that can keep pediatricians up at night.
“Any kind of guidance is helpful in these difficult cases,” he said. “These are scenarios that can often happen in the middle of the night, and you’re often struggling with evidence or past experience that can help you make some of these decisions.”
Authors of the reports and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.
FROM PEDIATRICS
No more injections after one-off gene therapy in hemophilia B
Patients with hemophilia B face a lifelong need for regular factor IX injections.
“Removing the need for hemophilia patients to regularly inject themselves with the missing protein is an important step in improving their quality of life,” lead author Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Royal Free Hospital, University College London Cancer Institute, commented in a press statement.
The team reported new results with the investigational gene therapy FLT180a in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We found that normal factor IX levels can be achieved in patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B with the use of relatively low vector doses of FLT180a,” the authors reported. “In all but one patient, gene therapy led to durable factor IX expression, eliminated the need for factor IX prophylaxis, and eliminated spontaneous bleeding leading to factor IX replacement.”
FLT180a (Freeline Therapeutics) is a liver-directed, adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy designed to normalize levels of the factor IX protein that is needed for coagulation; however, it is produced in dangerously low levels in people with hemophilia B as a result of gene mutations.
Under the current standard of care, patients with hemophilia B require lifelong prophylaxis of regular intravenous injections with recombinant factor IX replacement therapy, and they commonly continue to experience potentially severe joint pain.
While factor-replacement therapies with longer half-lives have emerged, the prophylaxis is still invasive and extremely expensive, with the average price tag in the United States of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.
Novel gene therapy
Hemophilia B is a rare and inherited genetic bleeding disorder caused by defects in the gene responsible for factor IX protein, which is needed for blood clotting.
AAV gene therapy delivers a functional copy of this gene directly to patient tissues to compensate for one that is not working properly. It leads to the synthesis of factor IX proteins and a one-time gene therapy infusion can achieve long-lasting effects, the team explained in a press release.
The results they reported come from the phase 1/2 multicenter B-AMAZE open-label trial. It involved 10 patients (all age 18 and older) with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B, defined as having a factor IX level of 2% or less that of normal values.
All patients received one-off gene therapy infusion, at one of four FLT180a doses.
All patients also received immunosuppression to prevent the body from rejecting the vector gene therapy. This consisted of glucocorticoids with or without tacrolimus for a period of ranging from several weeks to several months.
Following the FLT180a infusion, all patients showed dose-dependent increases in factor IX levels. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 19.1-42.4 months), nearly all the patients (9 of 10) continued to show sustained factor IX activity.
Steady production of factor IX activity started at month 12, with low bleeding frequency that allowed these nine patients to no longer require weekly injections of the protein.
Five of the patients had factor IX levels in the normal range, from 51% to 78%; three patients had lower increases of 23%-43% of the normal range, and one patient who had received the highest dose, had a level that was 260% of normal.
The exception was one patient who required a return to factor IX prophylaxis. He had experienced a failure in the immunosuppression regimen due to a delay in the recognition of an immune response at approximately 22 weeks after treatment, the authors reported.
The therapy was generally well tolerated, with no infusion reactions or discontinuations of infusions. As of the study cutoff, no inhibitors of factor IX were detected.
Of the adverse events, about 10% were determined to be related to the gene therapy. The most common event associated with the gene therapy was increases in liver aminotransferase, which is a concern with AAV gene therapies, the authors commented.
Otherwise, 24% of adverse events were determined to be related to the immunosuppression, and were consistent with the known safety profiles of glucocorticoids and tacrolimus.
Late increases in aminotransferase levels were reported among patients who had received prolonged tacrolimus beyond the tapering of glucocorticoid treatment.
The one serious adverse event that was reported involved an arteriovenous fistula thrombosis, which occurred in the patient who had received the highest dose of gene therapy and who showed the highest factor IX levels.
The current findings, along with data from another recent study involving gene therapy for patients with hemophilia A, emphasized that “immune responses can occur later than previously expected and may coincide with the withdrawal of immunosuppression,” the authors cautioned.
“Consistent best practices for monitoring aminotransferase levels and deciding when ALT increases warrant intervention remain a critical topic for the field,” they noted.
Meanwhile, the patients in this B-AMAZE trial all remain enrolled in a long-term follow-up study to assess the safety and durability of FLT180a over 15 years.
The trial was sponsored by University College London and funded by Freeline Therapeutics. Dr. Chowdary disclosed various relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with hemophilia B face a lifelong need for regular factor IX injections.
“Removing the need for hemophilia patients to regularly inject themselves with the missing protein is an important step in improving their quality of life,” lead author Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Royal Free Hospital, University College London Cancer Institute, commented in a press statement.
The team reported new results with the investigational gene therapy FLT180a in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We found that normal factor IX levels can be achieved in patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B with the use of relatively low vector doses of FLT180a,” the authors reported. “In all but one patient, gene therapy led to durable factor IX expression, eliminated the need for factor IX prophylaxis, and eliminated spontaneous bleeding leading to factor IX replacement.”
FLT180a (Freeline Therapeutics) is a liver-directed, adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy designed to normalize levels of the factor IX protein that is needed for coagulation; however, it is produced in dangerously low levels in people with hemophilia B as a result of gene mutations.
Under the current standard of care, patients with hemophilia B require lifelong prophylaxis of regular intravenous injections with recombinant factor IX replacement therapy, and they commonly continue to experience potentially severe joint pain.
While factor-replacement therapies with longer half-lives have emerged, the prophylaxis is still invasive and extremely expensive, with the average price tag in the United States of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.
Novel gene therapy
Hemophilia B is a rare and inherited genetic bleeding disorder caused by defects in the gene responsible for factor IX protein, which is needed for blood clotting.
AAV gene therapy delivers a functional copy of this gene directly to patient tissues to compensate for one that is not working properly. It leads to the synthesis of factor IX proteins and a one-time gene therapy infusion can achieve long-lasting effects, the team explained in a press release.
The results they reported come from the phase 1/2 multicenter B-AMAZE open-label trial. It involved 10 patients (all age 18 and older) with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B, defined as having a factor IX level of 2% or less that of normal values.
All patients received one-off gene therapy infusion, at one of four FLT180a doses.
All patients also received immunosuppression to prevent the body from rejecting the vector gene therapy. This consisted of glucocorticoids with or without tacrolimus for a period of ranging from several weeks to several months.
Following the FLT180a infusion, all patients showed dose-dependent increases in factor IX levels. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 19.1-42.4 months), nearly all the patients (9 of 10) continued to show sustained factor IX activity.
Steady production of factor IX activity started at month 12, with low bleeding frequency that allowed these nine patients to no longer require weekly injections of the protein.
Five of the patients had factor IX levels in the normal range, from 51% to 78%; three patients had lower increases of 23%-43% of the normal range, and one patient who had received the highest dose, had a level that was 260% of normal.
The exception was one patient who required a return to factor IX prophylaxis. He had experienced a failure in the immunosuppression regimen due to a delay in the recognition of an immune response at approximately 22 weeks after treatment, the authors reported.
The therapy was generally well tolerated, with no infusion reactions or discontinuations of infusions. As of the study cutoff, no inhibitors of factor IX were detected.
Of the adverse events, about 10% were determined to be related to the gene therapy. The most common event associated with the gene therapy was increases in liver aminotransferase, which is a concern with AAV gene therapies, the authors commented.
Otherwise, 24% of adverse events were determined to be related to the immunosuppression, and were consistent with the known safety profiles of glucocorticoids and tacrolimus.
Late increases in aminotransferase levels were reported among patients who had received prolonged tacrolimus beyond the tapering of glucocorticoid treatment.
The one serious adverse event that was reported involved an arteriovenous fistula thrombosis, which occurred in the patient who had received the highest dose of gene therapy and who showed the highest factor IX levels.
The current findings, along with data from another recent study involving gene therapy for patients with hemophilia A, emphasized that “immune responses can occur later than previously expected and may coincide with the withdrawal of immunosuppression,” the authors cautioned.
“Consistent best practices for monitoring aminotransferase levels and deciding when ALT increases warrant intervention remain a critical topic for the field,” they noted.
Meanwhile, the patients in this B-AMAZE trial all remain enrolled in a long-term follow-up study to assess the safety and durability of FLT180a over 15 years.
The trial was sponsored by University College London and funded by Freeline Therapeutics. Dr. Chowdary disclosed various relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with hemophilia B face a lifelong need for regular factor IX injections.
“Removing the need for hemophilia patients to regularly inject themselves with the missing protein is an important step in improving their quality of life,” lead author Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Royal Free Hospital, University College London Cancer Institute, commented in a press statement.
The team reported new results with the investigational gene therapy FLT180a in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We found that normal factor IX levels can be achieved in patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B with the use of relatively low vector doses of FLT180a,” the authors reported. “In all but one patient, gene therapy led to durable factor IX expression, eliminated the need for factor IX prophylaxis, and eliminated spontaneous bleeding leading to factor IX replacement.”
FLT180a (Freeline Therapeutics) is a liver-directed, adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy designed to normalize levels of the factor IX protein that is needed for coagulation; however, it is produced in dangerously low levels in people with hemophilia B as a result of gene mutations.
Under the current standard of care, patients with hemophilia B require lifelong prophylaxis of regular intravenous injections with recombinant factor IX replacement therapy, and they commonly continue to experience potentially severe joint pain.
While factor-replacement therapies with longer half-lives have emerged, the prophylaxis is still invasive and extremely expensive, with the average price tag in the United States of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.
Novel gene therapy
Hemophilia B is a rare and inherited genetic bleeding disorder caused by defects in the gene responsible for factor IX protein, which is needed for blood clotting.
AAV gene therapy delivers a functional copy of this gene directly to patient tissues to compensate for one that is not working properly. It leads to the synthesis of factor IX proteins and a one-time gene therapy infusion can achieve long-lasting effects, the team explained in a press release.
The results they reported come from the phase 1/2 multicenter B-AMAZE open-label trial. It involved 10 patients (all age 18 and older) with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B, defined as having a factor IX level of 2% or less that of normal values.
All patients received one-off gene therapy infusion, at one of four FLT180a doses.
All patients also received immunosuppression to prevent the body from rejecting the vector gene therapy. This consisted of glucocorticoids with or without tacrolimus for a period of ranging from several weeks to several months.
Following the FLT180a infusion, all patients showed dose-dependent increases in factor IX levels. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 19.1-42.4 months), nearly all the patients (9 of 10) continued to show sustained factor IX activity.
Steady production of factor IX activity started at month 12, with low bleeding frequency that allowed these nine patients to no longer require weekly injections of the protein.
Five of the patients had factor IX levels in the normal range, from 51% to 78%; three patients had lower increases of 23%-43% of the normal range, and one patient who had received the highest dose, had a level that was 260% of normal.
The exception was one patient who required a return to factor IX prophylaxis. He had experienced a failure in the immunosuppression regimen due to a delay in the recognition of an immune response at approximately 22 weeks after treatment, the authors reported.
The therapy was generally well tolerated, with no infusion reactions or discontinuations of infusions. As of the study cutoff, no inhibitors of factor IX were detected.
Of the adverse events, about 10% were determined to be related to the gene therapy. The most common event associated with the gene therapy was increases in liver aminotransferase, which is a concern with AAV gene therapies, the authors commented.
Otherwise, 24% of adverse events were determined to be related to the immunosuppression, and were consistent with the known safety profiles of glucocorticoids and tacrolimus.
Late increases in aminotransferase levels were reported among patients who had received prolonged tacrolimus beyond the tapering of glucocorticoid treatment.
The one serious adverse event that was reported involved an arteriovenous fistula thrombosis, which occurred in the patient who had received the highest dose of gene therapy and who showed the highest factor IX levels.
The current findings, along with data from another recent study involving gene therapy for patients with hemophilia A, emphasized that “immune responses can occur later than previously expected and may coincide with the withdrawal of immunosuppression,” the authors cautioned.
“Consistent best practices for monitoring aminotransferase levels and deciding when ALT increases warrant intervention remain a critical topic for the field,” they noted.
Meanwhile, the patients in this B-AMAZE trial all remain enrolled in a long-term follow-up study to assess the safety and durability of FLT180a over 15 years.
The trial was sponsored by University College London and funded by Freeline Therapeutics. Dr. Chowdary disclosed various relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Will the headache field embrace rofecoxib?
In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.
The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.
In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.
, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.
Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
A crowded market
The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.
Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
An improved formulation
Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”
A different mechanism of action
Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”
“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”
One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.
Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.
Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
No unique risks at prescribed doses
The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.
Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.
“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.
“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
Risk versus benefit
Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.
During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.
“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”
Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.
In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.
The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.
In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.
, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.
Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
A crowded market
The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.
Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
An improved formulation
Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”
A different mechanism of action
Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”
“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”
One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.
Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.
Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
No unique risks at prescribed doses
The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.
Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.
“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.
“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
Risk versus benefit
Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.
During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.
“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”
Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.
In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.
The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.
In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.
, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.
Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
A crowded market
The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.
Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
An improved formulation
Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”
A different mechanism of action
Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”
“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”
One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.
Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.
Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
No unique risks at prescribed doses
The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.
Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.
“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.
“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
Risk versus benefit
Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.
During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.
“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”
Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.
Debated: Nonfactor versus gene therapy for hemophilia
Ultimately, results of a very informal polling of the online audience suggested a strong leaning toward the known benefits of nonfactor therapy, as opposed to as-yet unapproved gene therapy. Although Benjamin Samelson-Jones, MD, PhD, argued for gene therapy, he also saluted the progress made that had enabled such choices.
“Our patients and the field have greatly benefited from this broad spectrum of different therapies and how they’ve been implemented, and it’s a truly exciting time because there will continue to be advancements in both these therapeutic modalities in the next 5-10 years,” said Dr. Samelson-Jones, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of hematology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Game changers emerge
Hemophilia A, characterized by a hereditary deficiency in factor VIII disorder, has long involved prophylaxis treatment with procoagulant factor replacement therapy that requires intravenous injection as often as several times a week. This can cause problems with venous access that are particularly burdensome for child patients.
Nonfactor therapy, currently consisting of the approved emicizumab but with more agents in development, provides coagulation without replacement of factor VIII. Importantly, this treatment requires only subcutaneous injection which, after a loading dose period, may be needed weekly or even just once a month.
However, in 2018, at approximately the same time that emicizumab was approved, patients with hemophilia A became eligible to enroll in clinical trials for the far more revolutionary concept of gene therapy, with the chance to become infusion free after just a single infusion.
There are caveats aplenty. Four of the therapies now in phase 3 development are adeno-associated viral vectors that are liver directed, meaning that patients need to be closely followed in the first months post infusion, with regular blood tests and other monitoring.
Notably, once patients receive an infusion, they cannot receive another, because of the buildup of antibodies.
“I think [this is] most important when considering current gene therapy – a patient can only receive it once, based on current technology,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said in an interview.“That means if a patient received gene therapy in 2023, and something better is developed in 2025, they are unlikely to be able to receive it.”
Nevertheless, with favorable phase 3 data reported in March 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the first gene therapy for hemophilia A, valoctocogene roxaparvovec (BioMarin), appears poised for possible regulatory approval very soon.
“I expect this product to be approved in the next year, though I been previously surprised before about delays in this product’s clinical development,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said.
Pros of nonfactor therapy
Arguing on the side of nonfactor therapy in the debate, Roseline d’Oiron, MD, underscored the extent to which nonfactor therapy has dramatically transformed lives.
With intravenous injections, “the burden of the stress and anxiety of the injections is underestimated, even when you don’t have venous access problems,” said Dr. d’Oiron, a clinician investigator at the University Paris XI.
The heavy toll that these therapeutic challenges have had on patients’ lives and identities has been documented in patient advocacy reports, underscoring that “the availability of subcutaneous therapies through the nonfactor therapies for hemophilia A has really been a game changer,” said Dr. d’Oiron, who is also the associate director of the Reference Centre for Hemophilia and Other Congenital Rare Bleeding Disorders, Congenital Platelets Disorders, and von Willebrand Disease at Bicêtre (France) Hospital AP-HP.
She noted that newer therapies in development show the potential to offer longer half-lives, providing “even more improvement with wider intervals between the subcutaneous injections.”
The efficacy of nonfactor therapies also translates to lower rates of joint bleeding, which represent the most common complication in hemophilia, potentially causing acute or chronic pain.
“These therapies allow a life that is much closer to what would be considered a normal life, and especially allowing some physical activities with the prevention of bleeding episodes,” Dr. d’Oiron said. “The drugs have a good safety profile and are completely changing the picture of this disease.”
Dr. d’Oiron noted that, in the real-world clinical setting, there is no debate over nonfactor versus gene therapy. Most prefer to stick with what is already working well for them.
“In my clinical practice, only a very limited number of patients are really willing and considering the switch to gene therapy,” she said. “They feel that the nonfactor therapy is filling their previous unmet needs quite well, and the impression is that we don’t necessarily need look for something different.”
Limitations of nonfactor therapy
Echoing that he has had the same favorable experiences with patients on emicizumab as described by Dr. d’Oiron, Dr. Samelson-Jones, pointed out key caveats that significantly differentiate it from gene therapy, not the least of which is the basic issue of the requirement of injections.
“Even with longer half-lives, approximately monthly injections are still required with nonfactor therapy,” which can – and have – been compromised by any range of societal disruptions, including a pandemic or supply issues.
Furthermore, the mechanism of nonfactor therapies in providing hemostatic regulation outside of normal factor VIII is unregulated, with ‘no easy ‘off’ switch,’ he explained.
“The balance that nonfactor agents provide between pro- and anticoagulant forces is inherently more fragile – more like a knife’s edge, and has resulted in the risk for thrombotic complications in most examples of nonfactor therapies,” he said.
In addition, the therapies have unknown immunogenicity, with an increased risk of the development of antidrug antibodies, called inhibitors, a theoretical complication of nonfactor therapies, if factor VIII is only administered in the setting of bleeds or perioperatively, Dr. Samelson-Jones said.
That being said, “nonfactor agents are not for all patients with hemophilia A in the future – but rather gene therapy is,” he noted.
Normal hemostasis ‘only achievable with gene therapy’
In contrast to nonfactor therapy, just one infusion of gene therapy “ideally offers many years of potentially curative hemostatic protection,” Dr. Samuelson-Jones said. “The ultimate goal, I believe, is to achieve normal hemostasis and health equity, and I contend this goal is only really achievable with gene therapy.”
He noted that, while gene therapies will require initial monitoring, “once the gene therapy recipient is 3 or 12 months out, the monitoring really de-escalates, and the patient is free from all drug delivery or needing to be in close contact with their treatment center.”
Regarding concerns about not being able to receive gene therapy more than once, Dr. Samuelson-Jones said that work is underway to develop alternative viral vectors and nonviral vectors that may overcome those challenges.
Overall, he underscored that challenges are par for the course in the development of any novel therapeutic approach.
For instance, similar challenges were experienced 10 years ago in the development of gene therapy for hemophilia B. However, with advances, “they’ve now been able to achieve long-term sustained levels in the normal ordinary curative range. And I’m optimistic that similar advances may be able to be achieved for factor VIII gene transfer,” he said.
Nonfactor therapies as bridge?
That being said, nonfactor therapies are going to be essential in treating patients until such advances come to fruition, Dr. Samelson-Jones noted.
“I would agree that nonfactor therapies in 2022 have really simplified and improved the convenience of prophylaxis,” he said, “but I would view them as a bridging therapy until gene therapy goes through clinical development and are licensed for all patients with hemophilia.”
While Dr. d’Oiron agreed with that possibility, she countered that, when it comes to crossing over to gene therapy, some very long bridges might be needed.
“I would love to have a therapy that would be both extremely safe and effective and offering a cure and normalization of hemostasis,” she said. “But I’m afraid that the current available gene therapy that might be arriving soon still does no fulfill all of these criteria. I think there are a lot of questions so far.”
Ultimately, Dr. Samelson-Jones conceded that the success of emicizumab has set a high bar in the minds of clinicians and patients alike, which will strongly influence perceptions of any alternative approaches –and of participation in clinical trials.
“I think that, unequivocally, emicizumab has changed the risk-benefit discussion about enrolling in clinical trials, and in gene therapy in particular,” he said. “And I think it also has set the threshold for efficacy – and if a gene therapy product in development can’t achieve bleeding control that is similar to that provided with emicizumab, then that is not a product that is going to be able to continue in clinical development.”
Importantly, both debaters underscored the need for ongoing efforts to make the novel – and therefore costly therapies accessible to all, through organizations including the World Federation of Hemophilia Humanitarian Aid Program.
“It would be my hope that we can then extend all of these great therapies to the majority of undertreated patients with hemophilia around the world,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said. “I think that’s an issue that must be addressed with all of these novel therapies.”
Commenting on these issues, Riitta Lassila, MD, professor of coagulation medicine at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Helsinki University Hospital, , who moderated the debate, said it has also been her experience that some patients express reluctance to enter the gene therapy trials
“There are two groups of patients, just as in the healthy population as well,” she said in an interview. “Some more ready to take risks and some are very hesitant [regarding] anything new. We do have the saying: If something is not broken, don’t fix it.”
She noted the additional concern that while the therapy has been successful in hemophilia B, factor VIII involves a larger construct and may have limitations with hemophilia A.
Furthermore, “the sustainability of factor VIII production may decrease in a couple of years, and the treatment duration could remain suboptimal,” Dr. Lassila said. “However, hemostasis seems to still [be achieved] with gene therapy, so maybe there will be more efficient solutions in the future.”
Dr. Samuelson-Jones has been a consultant for Pfizer, Bayer, Genentech, Frontera, and Cabaletta and serves on the scientific advisory board of GeneVentiv. Dr. d’Oiron has reported relationships with Baxalta/Shire, Bayer, Biomarin, CSL Behring, LFB, NovoNordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Sobi. Dr. Lassila has been an adviser for Roche (emicizumab) and Biomarin and CSL for gene therapy.
Ultimately, results of a very informal polling of the online audience suggested a strong leaning toward the known benefits of nonfactor therapy, as opposed to as-yet unapproved gene therapy. Although Benjamin Samelson-Jones, MD, PhD, argued for gene therapy, he also saluted the progress made that had enabled such choices.
“Our patients and the field have greatly benefited from this broad spectrum of different therapies and how they’ve been implemented, and it’s a truly exciting time because there will continue to be advancements in both these therapeutic modalities in the next 5-10 years,” said Dr. Samelson-Jones, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of hematology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Game changers emerge
Hemophilia A, characterized by a hereditary deficiency in factor VIII disorder, has long involved prophylaxis treatment with procoagulant factor replacement therapy that requires intravenous injection as often as several times a week. This can cause problems with venous access that are particularly burdensome for child patients.
Nonfactor therapy, currently consisting of the approved emicizumab but with more agents in development, provides coagulation without replacement of factor VIII. Importantly, this treatment requires only subcutaneous injection which, after a loading dose period, may be needed weekly or even just once a month.
However, in 2018, at approximately the same time that emicizumab was approved, patients with hemophilia A became eligible to enroll in clinical trials for the far more revolutionary concept of gene therapy, with the chance to become infusion free after just a single infusion.
There are caveats aplenty. Four of the therapies now in phase 3 development are adeno-associated viral vectors that are liver directed, meaning that patients need to be closely followed in the first months post infusion, with regular blood tests and other monitoring.
Notably, once patients receive an infusion, they cannot receive another, because of the buildup of antibodies.
“I think [this is] most important when considering current gene therapy – a patient can only receive it once, based on current technology,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said in an interview.“That means if a patient received gene therapy in 2023, and something better is developed in 2025, they are unlikely to be able to receive it.”
Nevertheless, with favorable phase 3 data reported in March 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the first gene therapy for hemophilia A, valoctocogene roxaparvovec (BioMarin), appears poised for possible regulatory approval very soon.
“I expect this product to be approved in the next year, though I been previously surprised before about delays in this product’s clinical development,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said.
Pros of nonfactor therapy
Arguing on the side of nonfactor therapy in the debate, Roseline d’Oiron, MD, underscored the extent to which nonfactor therapy has dramatically transformed lives.
With intravenous injections, “the burden of the stress and anxiety of the injections is underestimated, even when you don’t have venous access problems,” said Dr. d’Oiron, a clinician investigator at the University Paris XI.
The heavy toll that these therapeutic challenges have had on patients’ lives and identities has been documented in patient advocacy reports, underscoring that “the availability of subcutaneous therapies through the nonfactor therapies for hemophilia A has really been a game changer,” said Dr. d’Oiron, who is also the associate director of the Reference Centre for Hemophilia and Other Congenital Rare Bleeding Disorders, Congenital Platelets Disorders, and von Willebrand Disease at Bicêtre (France) Hospital AP-HP.
She noted that newer therapies in development show the potential to offer longer half-lives, providing “even more improvement with wider intervals between the subcutaneous injections.”
The efficacy of nonfactor therapies also translates to lower rates of joint bleeding, which represent the most common complication in hemophilia, potentially causing acute or chronic pain.
“These therapies allow a life that is much closer to what would be considered a normal life, and especially allowing some physical activities with the prevention of bleeding episodes,” Dr. d’Oiron said. “The drugs have a good safety profile and are completely changing the picture of this disease.”
Dr. d’Oiron noted that, in the real-world clinical setting, there is no debate over nonfactor versus gene therapy. Most prefer to stick with what is already working well for them.
“In my clinical practice, only a very limited number of patients are really willing and considering the switch to gene therapy,” she said. “They feel that the nonfactor therapy is filling their previous unmet needs quite well, and the impression is that we don’t necessarily need look for something different.”
Limitations of nonfactor therapy
Echoing that he has had the same favorable experiences with patients on emicizumab as described by Dr. d’Oiron, Dr. Samelson-Jones, pointed out key caveats that significantly differentiate it from gene therapy, not the least of which is the basic issue of the requirement of injections.
“Even with longer half-lives, approximately monthly injections are still required with nonfactor therapy,” which can – and have – been compromised by any range of societal disruptions, including a pandemic or supply issues.
Furthermore, the mechanism of nonfactor therapies in providing hemostatic regulation outside of normal factor VIII is unregulated, with ‘no easy ‘off’ switch,’ he explained.
“The balance that nonfactor agents provide between pro- and anticoagulant forces is inherently more fragile – more like a knife’s edge, and has resulted in the risk for thrombotic complications in most examples of nonfactor therapies,” he said.
In addition, the therapies have unknown immunogenicity, with an increased risk of the development of antidrug antibodies, called inhibitors, a theoretical complication of nonfactor therapies, if factor VIII is only administered in the setting of bleeds or perioperatively, Dr. Samelson-Jones said.
That being said, “nonfactor agents are not for all patients with hemophilia A in the future – but rather gene therapy is,” he noted.
Normal hemostasis ‘only achievable with gene therapy’
In contrast to nonfactor therapy, just one infusion of gene therapy “ideally offers many years of potentially curative hemostatic protection,” Dr. Samuelson-Jones said. “The ultimate goal, I believe, is to achieve normal hemostasis and health equity, and I contend this goal is only really achievable with gene therapy.”
He noted that, while gene therapies will require initial monitoring, “once the gene therapy recipient is 3 or 12 months out, the monitoring really de-escalates, and the patient is free from all drug delivery or needing to be in close contact with their treatment center.”
Regarding concerns about not being able to receive gene therapy more than once, Dr. Samuelson-Jones said that work is underway to develop alternative viral vectors and nonviral vectors that may overcome those challenges.
Overall, he underscored that challenges are par for the course in the development of any novel therapeutic approach.
For instance, similar challenges were experienced 10 years ago in the development of gene therapy for hemophilia B. However, with advances, “they’ve now been able to achieve long-term sustained levels in the normal ordinary curative range. And I’m optimistic that similar advances may be able to be achieved for factor VIII gene transfer,” he said.
Nonfactor therapies as bridge?
That being said, nonfactor therapies are going to be essential in treating patients until such advances come to fruition, Dr. Samelson-Jones noted.
“I would agree that nonfactor therapies in 2022 have really simplified and improved the convenience of prophylaxis,” he said, “but I would view them as a bridging therapy until gene therapy goes through clinical development and are licensed for all patients with hemophilia.”
While Dr. d’Oiron agreed with that possibility, she countered that, when it comes to crossing over to gene therapy, some very long bridges might be needed.
“I would love to have a therapy that would be both extremely safe and effective and offering a cure and normalization of hemostasis,” she said. “But I’m afraid that the current available gene therapy that might be arriving soon still does no fulfill all of these criteria. I think there are a lot of questions so far.”
Ultimately, Dr. Samelson-Jones conceded that the success of emicizumab has set a high bar in the minds of clinicians and patients alike, which will strongly influence perceptions of any alternative approaches –and of participation in clinical trials.
“I think that, unequivocally, emicizumab has changed the risk-benefit discussion about enrolling in clinical trials, and in gene therapy in particular,” he said. “And I think it also has set the threshold for efficacy – and if a gene therapy product in development can’t achieve bleeding control that is similar to that provided with emicizumab, then that is not a product that is going to be able to continue in clinical development.”
Importantly, both debaters underscored the need for ongoing efforts to make the novel – and therefore costly therapies accessible to all, through organizations including the World Federation of Hemophilia Humanitarian Aid Program.
“It would be my hope that we can then extend all of these great therapies to the majority of undertreated patients with hemophilia around the world,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said. “I think that’s an issue that must be addressed with all of these novel therapies.”
Commenting on these issues, Riitta Lassila, MD, professor of coagulation medicine at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Helsinki University Hospital, , who moderated the debate, said it has also been her experience that some patients express reluctance to enter the gene therapy trials
“There are two groups of patients, just as in the healthy population as well,” she said in an interview. “Some more ready to take risks and some are very hesitant [regarding] anything new. We do have the saying: If something is not broken, don’t fix it.”
She noted the additional concern that while the therapy has been successful in hemophilia B, factor VIII involves a larger construct and may have limitations with hemophilia A.
Furthermore, “the sustainability of factor VIII production may decrease in a couple of years, and the treatment duration could remain suboptimal,” Dr. Lassila said. “However, hemostasis seems to still [be achieved] with gene therapy, so maybe there will be more efficient solutions in the future.”
Dr. Samuelson-Jones has been a consultant for Pfizer, Bayer, Genentech, Frontera, and Cabaletta and serves on the scientific advisory board of GeneVentiv. Dr. d’Oiron has reported relationships with Baxalta/Shire, Bayer, Biomarin, CSL Behring, LFB, NovoNordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Sobi. Dr. Lassila has been an adviser for Roche (emicizumab) and Biomarin and CSL for gene therapy.
Ultimately, results of a very informal polling of the online audience suggested a strong leaning toward the known benefits of nonfactor therapy, as opposed to as-yet unapproved gene therapy. Although Benjamin Samelson-Jones, MD, PhD, argued for gene therapy, he also saluted the progress made that had enabled such choices.
“Our patients and the field have greatly benefited from this broad spectrum of different therapies and how they’ve been implemented, and it’s a truly exciting time because there will continue to be advancements in both these therapeutic modalities in the next 5-10 years,” said Dr. Samelson-Jones, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of hematology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Game changers emerge
Hemophilia A, characterized by a hereditary deficiency in factor VIII disorder, has long involved prophylaxis treatment with procoagulant factor replacement therapy that requires intravenous injection as often as several times a week. This can cause problems with venous access that are particularly burdensome for child patients.
Nonfactor therapy, currently consisting of the approved emicizumab but with more agents in development, provides coagulation without replacement of factor VIII. Importantly, this treatment requires only subcutaneous injection which, after a loading dose period, may be needed weekly or even just once a month.
However, in 2018, at approximately the same time that emicizumab was approved, patients with hemophilia A became eligible to enroll in clinical trials for the far more revolutionary concept of gene therapy, with the chance to become infusion free after just a single infusion.
There are caveats aplenty. Four of the therapies now in phase 3 development are adeno-associated viral vectors that are liver directed, meaning that patients need to be closely followed in the first months post infusion, with regular blood tests and other monitoring.
Notably, once patients receive an infusion, they cannot receive another, because of the buildup of antibodies.
“I think [this is] most important when considering current gene therapy – a patient can only receive it once, based on current technology,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said in an interview.“That means if a patient received gene therapy in 2023, and something better is developed in 2025, they are unlikely to be able to receive it.”
Nevertheless, with favorable phase 3 data reported in March 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the first gene therapy for hemophilia A, valoctocogene roxaparvovec (BioMarin), appears poised for possible regulatory approval very soon.
“I expect this product to be approved in the next year, though I been previously surprised before about delays in this product’s clinical development,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said.
Pros of nonfactor therapy
Arguing on the side of nonfactor therapy in the debate, Roseline d’Oiron, MD, underscored the extent to which nonfactor therapy has dramatically transformed lives.
With intravenous injections, “the burden of the stress and anxiety of the injections is underestimated, even when you don’t have venous access problems,” said Dr. d’Oiron, a clinician investigator at the University Paris XI.
The heavy toll that these therapeutic challenges have had on patients’ lives and identities has been documented in patient advocacy reports, underscoring that “the availability of subcutaneous therapies through the nonfactor therapies for hemophilia A has really been a game changer,” said Dr. d’Oiron, who is also the associate director of the Reference Centre for Hemophilia and Other Congenital Rare Bleeding Disorders, Congenital Platelets Disorders, and von Willebrand Disease at Bicêtre (France) Hospital AP-HP.
She noted that newer therapies in development show the potential to offer longer half-lives, providing “even more improvement with wider intervals between the subcutaneous injections.”
The efficacy of nonfactor therapies also translates to lower rates of joint bleeding, which represent the most common complication in hemophilia, potentially causing acute or chronic pain.
“These therapies allow a life that is much closer to what would be considered a normal life, and especially allowing some physical activities with the prevention of bleeding episodes,” Dr. d’Oiron said. “The drugs have a good safety profile and are completely changing the picture of this disease.”
Dr. d’Oiron noted that, in the real-world clinical setting, there is no debate over nonfactor versus gene therapy. Most prefer to stick with what is already working well for them.
“In my clinical practice, only a very limited number of patients are really willing and considering the switch to gene therapy,” she said. “They feel that the nonfactor therapy is filling their previous unmet needs quite well, and the impression is that we don’t necessarily need look for something different.”
Limitations of nonfactor therapy
Echoing that he has had the same favorable experiences with patients on emicizumab as described by Dr. d’Oiron, Dr. Samelson-Jones, pointed out key caveats that significantly differentiate it from gene therapy, not the least of which is the basic issue of the requirement of injections.
“Even with longer half-lives, approximately monthly injections are still required with nonfactor therapy,” which can – and have – been compromised by any range of societal disruptions, including a pandemic or supply issues.
Furthermore, the mechanism of nonfactor therapies in providing hemostatic regulation outside of normal factor VIII is unregulated, with ‘no easy ‘off’ switch,’ he explained.
“The balance that nonfactor agents provide between pro- and anticoagulant forces is inherently more fragile – more like a knife’s edge, and has resulted in the risk for thrombotic complications in most examples of nonfactor therapies,” he said.
In addition, the therapies have unknown immunogenicity, with an increased risk of the development of antidrug antibodies, called inhibitors, a theoretical complication of nonfactor therapies, if factor VIII is only administered in the setting of bleeds or perioperatively, Dr. Samelson-Jones said.
That being said, “nonfactor agents are not for all patients with hemophilia A in the future – but rather gene therapy is,” he noted.
Normal hemostasis ‘only achievable with gene therapy’
In contrast to nonfactor therapy, just one infusion of gene therapy “ideally offers many years of potentially curative hemostatic protection,” Dr. Samuelson-Jones said. “The ultimate goal, I believe, is to achieve normal hemostasis and health equity, and I contend this goal is only really achievable with gene therapy.”
He noted that, while gene therapies will require initial monitoring, “once the gene therapy recipient is 3 or 12 months out, the monitoring really de-escalates, and the patient is free from all drug delivery or needing to be in close contact with their treatment center.”
Regarding concerns about not being able to receive gene therapy more than once, Dr. Samuelson-Jones said that work is underway to develop alternative viral vectors and nonviral vectors that may overcome those challenges.
Overall, he underscored that challenges are par for the course in the development of any novel therapeutic approach.
For instance, similar challenges were experienced 10 years ago in the development of gene therapy for hemophilia B. However, with advances, “they’ve now been able to achieve long-term sustained levels in the normal ordinary curative range. And I’m optimistic that similar advances may be able to be achieved for factor VIII gene transfer,” he said.
Nonfactor therapies as bridge?
That being said, nonfactor therapies are going to be essential in treating patients until such advances come to fruition, Dr. Samelson-Jones noted.
“I would agree that nonfactor therapies in 2022 have really simplified and improved the convenience of prophylaxis,” he said, “but I would view them as a bridging therapy until gene therapy goes through clinical development and are licensed for all patients with hemophilia.”
While Dr. d’Oiron agreed with that possibility, she countered that, when it comes to crossing over to gene therapy, some very long bridges might be needed.
“I would love to have a therapy that would be both extremely safe and effective and offering a cure and normalization of hemostasis,” she said. “But I’m afraid that the current available gene therapy that might be arriving soon still does no fulfill all of these criteria. I think there are a lot of questions so far.”
Ultimately, Dr. Samelson-Jones conceded that the success of emicizumab has set a high bar in the minds of clinicians and patients alike, which will strongly influence perceptions of any alternative approaches –and of participation in clinical trials.
“I think that, unequivocally, emicizumab has changed the risk-benefit discussion about enrolling in clinical trials, and in gene therapy in particular,” he said. “And I think it also has set the threshold for efficacy – and if a gene therapy product in development can’t achieve bleeding control that is similar to that provided with emicizumab, then that is not a product that is going to be able to continue in clinical development.”
Importantly, both debaters underscored the need for ongoing efforts to make the novel – and therefore costly therapies accessible to all, through organizations including the World Federation of Hemophilia Humanitarian Aid Program.
“It would be my hope that we can then extend all of these great therapies to the majority of undertreated patients with hemophilia around the world,” Dr. Samelson-Jones said. “I think that’s an issue that must be addressed with all of these novel therapies.”
Commenting on these issues, Riitta Lassila, MD, professor of coagulation medicine at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Helsinki University Hospital, , who moderated the debate, said it has also been her experience that some patients express reluctance to enter the gene therapy trials
“There are two groups of patients, just as in the healthy population as well,” she said in an interview. “Some more ready to take risks and some are very hesitant [regarding] anything new. We do have the saying: If something is not broken, don’t fix it.”
She noted the additional concern that while the therapy has been successful in hemophilia B, factor VIII involves a larger construct and may have limitations with hemophilia A.
Furthermore, “the sustainability of factor VIII production may decrease in a couple of years, and the treatment duration could remain suboptimal,” Dr. Lassila said. “However, hemostasis seems to still [be achieved] with gene therapy, so maybe there will be more efficient solutions in the future.”
Dr. Samuelson-Jones has been a consultant for Pfizer, Bayer, Genentech, Frontera, and Cabaletta and serves on the scientific advisory board of GeneVentiv. Dr. d’Oiron has reported relationships with Baxalta/Shire, Bayer, Biomarin, CSL Behring, LFB, NovoNordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Sobi. Dr. Lassila has been an adviser for Roche (emicizumab) and Biomarin and CSL for gene therapy.
FROM EHA 2022
Experts opine on hemophilia treatments
, according to a recent report in The Journal of Medicine in Life.
To get there, the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) has recognized that physicians need to aim for higher trough levels so patients can lead as normal a life as possible, but there’s debate about which levels are ideal.
“There is increasing recognition and evidence from the literature that factor trough levels of 1%-3% are insufficient to prevent bleeds in all patients with hemophilia. It has also been suggested that maintaining higher factor levels (above 10%) may be optimal to prevent subclinical bleeding and the gradual progression of joint disease over a lifespan in very active patients,” according to the report.
The paper was a summary of expert opinion on the issue and a range of other current and future challenges in hemophilia care. Switzerland-based Sobi surveyed nine hemophilia experts in central Europe for their insights, then convened an advisory panel to flesh out their responses.
They were asked for their thoughts on the efficacy of factor versus non-factor replacement therapy when aiming for a 3%-5% target trough for hemophilia A prophylaxis.
About half said non-factor therapy was more effective, while the other half favored factor therapy because it has similar efficacy and allows the tailoring of treatment to individual pharmacokinetic data, physical activity, and the condition of the musculoskeletal system.
However, “if the new treatment aim for [prophylaxis] is to increase the trough level, existing and future prophylactic regimens are likely to require adjustment. Maintaining such high trough levels in some patients may lead to the re-shortening of longer treatment intervals and, consequently, an increase of previously reduced factor consumption, which has been an important benefit of [extended half-life] products,” the report noted.
“This creates space for next-generation FVIII replacement therapy,” such as Sobi’s efanesoctocog alfa, which has been granted fast-track designation in the United States for hemophilia treatment, the report notes.
There was also a split in opinion on whether factor therapy offered similar or improved efficacy, compared with non-factor therapy when prophylaxis is intensified to aim for a 10% trough in very active patients. Factor prophylaxis “may be preferable for active hemophilia A” because of the greater personalization, it said.
The experts noted that trough levels are just one aspect of patient care; the overall aim is a better quality of life. The panel was asked about how quality of life could be enhanced in the future. More than half said that the move towards personalized treatment is key, including greater use of telemedicine applications such as Sobi’s florio HAEMO and Takeda’s MyPKFit.
“In addition, most of the experts agreed that novel therapies such as the new class of FVIII replacement therapy, efanesoctocog alfa (BIVV001), would become another mainstream therapy due to its potential to achieve personalized, extended protection against all bleeding types in patients with severe hemophilia A,” the report said.
In the meantime, the advent of extended half-life products and novel non-factor therapies such as emicizumab; subcutaneous siRNA prophylactic therapies such as fitusiran; and anti-tissue factor pathway inhibitors such as marstacimab – each with different mechanisms of action – has led to new challenges in laboratory monitoring.
For more personalized treatment to happen, “it will be necessary for specialized clinical laboratories to be fully equipped with the required equipment, product-specific reagents, and expertise to perform appropriate assays and monitor levels of coagulation activity,” the report noted.
Thrombin generation assays to measure the dynamics of blood coagulation are promising. “There’s significant potential for monitoring the efficacy” of prophylaxis across various established and novel hemophilia treatments, but the approach “is still in its infancy,” the report noted.
Overall, “new and emerging therapies such as novel [extended half-life] factor concentrates and non-factor treatments will likely reshape hemophilia care within the next decade, providing more efficacious and convenient management options and possibly curative therapies,” it said.
The work was funded by Sobi. Most of the panelists disclosed speaker/advisor fees and/or research funding from the company, as well as many others.
, according to a recent report in The Journal of Medicine in Life.
To get there, the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) has recognized that physicians need to aim for higher trough levels so patients can lead as normal a life as possible, but there’s debate about which levels are ideal.
“There is increasing recognition and evidence from the literature that factor trough levels of 1%-3% are insufficient to prevent bleeds in all patients with hemophilia. It has also been suggested that maintaining higher factor levels (above 10%) may be optimal to prevent subclinical bleeding and the gradual progression of joint disease over a lifespan in very active patients,” according to the report.
The paper was a summary of expert opinion on the issue and a range of other current and future challenges in hemophilia care. Switzerland-based Sobi surveyed nine hemophilia experts in central Europe for their insights, then convened an advisory panel to flesh out their responses.
They were asked for their thoughts on the efficacy of factor versus non-factor replacement therapy when aiming for a 3%-5% target trough for hemophilia A prophylaxis.
About half said non-factor therapy was more effective, while the other half favored factor therapy because it has similar efficacy and allows the tailoring of treatment to individual pharmacokinetic data, physical activity, and the condition of the musculoskeletal system.
However, “if the new treatment aim for [prophylaxis] is to increase the trough level, existing and future prophylactic regimens are likely to require adjustment. Maintaining such high trough levels in some patients may lead to the re-shortening of longer treatment intervals and, consequently, an increase of previously reduced factor consumption, which has been an important benefit of [extended half-life] products,” the report noted.
“This creates space for next-generation FVIII replacement therapy,” such as Sobi’s efanesoctocog alfa, which has been granted fast-track designation in the United States for hemophilia treatment, the report notes.
There was also a split in opinion on whether factor therapy offered similar or improved efficacy, compared with non-factor therapy when prophylaxis is intensified to aim for a 10% trough in very active patients. Factor prophylaxis “may be preferable for active hemophilia A” because of the greater personalization, it said.
The experts noted that trough levels are just one aspect of patient care; the overall aim is a better quality of life. The panel was asked about how quality of life could be enhanced in the future. More than half said that the move towards personalized treatment is key, including greater use of telemedicine applications such as Sobi’s florio HAEMO and Takeda’s MyPKFit.
“In addition, most of the experts agreed that novel therapies such as the new class of FVIII replacement therapy, efanesoctocog alfa (BIVV001), would become another mainstream therapy due to its potential to achieve personalized, extended protection against all bleeding types in patients with severe hemophilia A,” the report said.
In the meantime, the advent of extended half-life products and novel non-factor therapies such as emicizumab; subcutaneous siRNA prophylactic therapies such as fitusiran; and anti-tissue factor pathway inhibitors such as marstacimab – each with different mechanisms of action – has led to new challenges in laboratory monitoring.
For more personalized treatment to happen, “it will be necessary for specialized clinical laboratories to be fully equipped with the required equipment, product-specific reagents, and expertise to perform appropriate assays and monitor levels of coagulation activity,” the report noted.
Thrombin generation assays to measure the dynamics of blood coagulation are promising. “There’s significant potential for monitoring the efficacy” of prophylaxis across various established and novel hemophilia treatments, but the approach “is still in its infancy,” the report noted.
Overall, “new and emerging therapies such as novel [extended half-life] factor concentrates and non-factor treatments will likely reshape hemophilia care within the next decade, providing more efficacious and convenient management options and possibly curative therapies,” it said.
The work was funded by Sobi. Most of the panelists disclosed speaker/advisor fees and/or research funding from the company, as well as many others.
, according to a recent report in The Journal of Medicine in Life.
To get there, the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) has recognized that physicians need to aim for higher trough levels so patients can lead as normal a life as possible, but there’s debate about which levels are ideal.
“There is increasing recognition and evidence from the literature that factor trough levels of 1%-3% are insufficient to prevent bleeds in all patients with hemophilia. It has also been suggested that maintaining higher factor levels (above 10%) may be optimal to prevent subclinical bleeding and the gradual progression of joint disease over a lifespan in very active patients,” according to the report.
The paper was a summary of expert opinion on the issue and a range of other current and future challenges in hemophilia care. Switzerland-based Sobi surveyed nine hemophilia experts in central Europe for their insights, then convened an advisory panel to flesh out their responses.
They were asked for their thoughts on the efficacy of factor versus non-factor replacement therapy when aiming for a 3%-5% target trough for hemophilia A prophylaxis.
About half said non-factor therapy was more effective, while the other half favored factor therapy because it has similar efficacy and allows the tailoring of treatment to individual pharmacokinetic data, physical activity, and the condition of the musculoskeletal system.
However, “if the new treatment aim for [prophylaxis] is to increase the trough level, existing and future prophylactic regimens are likely to require adjustment. Maintaining such high trough levels in some patients may lead to the re-shortening of longer treatment intervals and, consequently, an increase of previously reduced factor consumption, which has been an important benefit of [extended half-life] products,” the report noted.
“This creates space for next-generation FVIII replacement therapy,” such as Sobi’s efanesoctocog alfa, which has been granted fast-track designation in the United States for hemophilia treatment, the report notes.
There was also a split in opinion on whether factor therapy offered similar or improved efficacy, compared with non-factor therapy when prophylaxis is intensified to aim for a 10% trough in very active patients. Factor prophylaxis “may be preferable for active hemophilia A” because of the greater personalization, it said.
The experts noted that trough levels are just one aspect of patient care; the overall aim is a better quality of life. The panel was asked about how quality of life could be enhanced in the future. More than half said that the move towards personalized treatment is key, including greater use of telemedicine applications such as Sobi’s florio HAEMO and Takeda’s MyPKFit.
“In addition, most of the experts agreed that novel therapies such as the new class of FVIII replacement therapy, efanesoctocog alfa (BIVV001), would become another mainstream therapy due to its potential to achieve personalized, extended protection against all bleeding types in patients with severe hemophilia A,” the report said.
In the meantime, the advent of extended half-life products and novel non-factor therapies such as emicizumab; subcutaneous siRNA prophylactic therapies such as fitusiran; and anti-tissue factor pathway inhibitors such as marstacimab – each with different mechanisms of action – has led to new challenges in laboratory monitoring.
For more personalized treatment to happen, “it will be necessary for specialized clinical laboratories to be fully equipped with the required equipment, product-specific reagents, and expertise to perform appropriate assays and monitor levels of coagulation activity,” the report noted.
Thrombin generation assays to measure the dynamics of blood coagulation are promising. “There’s significant potential for monitoring the efficacy” of prophylaxis across various established and novel hemophilia treatments, but the approach “is still in its infancy,” the report noted.
Overall, “new and emerging therapies such as novel [extended half-life] factor concentrates and non-factor treatments will likely reshape hemophilia care within the next decade, providing more efficacious and convenient management options and possibly curative therapies,” it said.
The work was funded by Sobi. Most of the panelists disclosed speaker/advisor fees and/or research funding from the company, as well as many others.
FROM The JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND LIFE
Specialists hail new era in hemophilia treatment
“It’s an amazing time to be a hemophilia provider,” Alice D. Ma, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and bleeding disorder specialist, said in an interview. “There are real options, and it’s very exciting.”
But the drugs come with quirks that hematologists must understand, hemophilia specialists cautioned, and stubborn insurers pose significant obstacles to appropriate care. Also, new generations of medications in development offer both hope and more questions.
By far, the biggest game changer in hemophilia A is a monoclonal antibody called emicizumab (Hemlibra), first approved by the Food and Drug Administration for hemophilia A patients with factor VIII inhibitors and then in 2018 for those without factor VIII inhibitors.
“It’s just been getting a bigger and bigger slice of market share as patients and parents really buy in to how great that product is,” Dr. Ma said. “I do not have any hemophilia A patients with factor VIII inhibitors who aren’t on it. That’s just kind of a no-brainer, no ifs, ands, or buts.”
About 50%-60% of her noninhibitor patients with hemophilia A take the drug, she said.
According to its manufacturer, Genentech, the drug “acts like a bridge, bringing factor IXa and factor X together to allow the blood coagulation process to continue without needing to replace factor VIII.”
Since emicizumab is not a blood factor, Dr. Ma said, it doesn’t cross-react with antibodies or inhibitors. “The other thing that is pretty amazing is that it’s given subcutaneously as opposed to intravenously. It’s given under the skin, kind of like an insulin shot, rather than into a vein.”
Prophylaxis treatments did exist for patients with hemophilia A prior to emicizumab, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and blood disorder specialist Nigel S. Key, MB, ChB, said in an interview. But the treatments didn’t stop all bleeding. “We never really kept them under control,” he said, adding that patients needed to get infusions several times a week. “It was cumbersome and took a lot of compliance, a lot of effort to do it.
Thanks to emicizumab, adult patients don’t have to put on tourniquets and stick butterfly needles into their own veins anymore, and parents no longer need to regularly give factor infusions to their children every 2-3 days, Dr. Ma said. Instead, doses may be required just once a week.
Not every patient is eager to embrace emicizumab
Emicizumab isn’t necessarily an easy sell. Home-care company pharmacies don’t get reimbursed as much for providing emicizumab, compared with factor infusions, Dr. Ma said, and some of these companies are urging parents to not accept the drug for their kids.
Prior experience can also make people wary. According to Dr. Ma, one of her patients – a 62-year-old man – was reluctant to take factor because he’d gotten infected with HIV from an infusion. “For guys of that certain age, factor was death. It was poison, so you tried really hard not to take it.”
The patient now regrets not taking emicizumab earlier. He told Dr. Ma that his joints “do feel better than when I took factor regularly,” and “he really thinks that it has made his hemophilia recede into the background of his life, which is pretty, pretty nice.”
In fact, Dr. Ma said, he dropped a 7-pound rock on his foot but did not need to take factor or be hospitalized because of bleeding. Instead, he simply “watched a bruise form and then get better.”
As for challenges beyond convincing patients to take emicizumab, Dr. Ma said that insurers can may still refuse to pay for it in noninhibitor patients. “Some of them say you have to fail a regular clotting factor to be able to take Hemlibra,” she said, noting that she finds this viewpoint intolerable.
Hemlibra is remarkably expensive, but treatment of bleeds is also pricey. A 2021 study found that median 6-month hemostatic treatment costs in hemophilia A patients fell from more than $176,000 to barely $128,000 after they started taking the drug.
There’s another hitch. Some hematologists don’t realize that the drug can throw off certain coagulation readings. Dr. Ma recalled that a patient with hemophilia A went to a different healthcare facility for a gall bladder operation, and hematology fellows there failed to adjust his factor VIII level – an extraordinarily high 400%, suggesting high coagulation – to reflect his use of emicizumab.
“My patient bled severely and could have lost his life,” Dr. Ma said.
Despite gains, hemophilia B remains hard to treat
The much rarer hemophilia B (the type that affected members of European royal families who descended from Queen Victoria) has proved more difficult to treat than hemophilia A. An estimated 1 in 5,600 males in the United States are born with hemophilia A, compared with 1 in 19,300 males born with hemophilia B. The conditions rarely affect females.
Recombinant factor IX products that replace a missing protein have been improved and can now be given every 7 or 14 days, instead of twice a week, Dr. Key said. As for the future, so-called rebalancing therapies are in phase 3 trials and look promising: “Instead of trying to beef up the proclotting proteins, you’re trying to knock down the anticlotting proteins. ‘Rebalancing’ is a good way to think of it.”
These treatments are also agnostic – like Hemlibra – to the presence of inhibitors, he said.
These drugs could be available within a few years, Dr. Key said. “The major concern is always going to be a risk of thrombosis or clotting. Some of that has only become apparent through clinical trials and require a return to the drawing board to redesign the dosing to hit the safe, sweet spot that prevents bleeds but doesn’t cause clots.”
Dr. Ma agreed that clots are a significant risk from rebalancing agents. “I don’t know that I would put a factor IX patient without an inhibitor on a rebalancing therapy, because we already have pretty darn good therapies for them,” she said. However, factor IX patients with inhibitors do need better treatments, “and we’re all looking forward to the next approved drugs there.”
Hoopla for gene therapy, with questions, as well
The prospect of gene therapy for hemophilia, meanwhile, continues to draw attention as phase 3 trials continue. Potentially, gene therapy could be given just once to patients with hemophilia A or hemophilia B and provide bleeding control indefinitely, Dr. Ma said.
However, Dr. Key wondered whether gene therapy may be useful in hemophilia A, since emicizumab has worked so well. “I just don’t see the tsunami of patients who are wanting to undergo gene therapy in the first few years. I think there’ll be relatively slow uptake due to a lot of factors, including reimbursement.”
Hematologist Amar H. Kelkar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also skeptical that a groundswell of patients will embrace gene therapy, even if one-time treatment lasts for years. Current treatments are working well for many patients, Dr. Kelkar said in an interview, “and comfort with novel therapies may be slow within the community, especially if the treatment effect is expected to be transient. This is the same community that was hit hard by contaminated blood products during the HIV crisis, so it may be hard to convince a large number of patients to adopt a new type of therapy. There’s also the issue of the projected high upfront cost of gene therapies. Of course, I’d love to be wrong, especially if cost issues for the patients can be mitigated.”
Moving forward, both Dr. Ma and Dr. Key urged hematologists to send their hemophilia patients to Hemophilia Treatment Centers so they can get specialized care. There are about 140 of these federally funded centers around the country, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation. Many are located in children’s hospitals.
Hemophilia treatment now requires a subspecialty degree of knowledge that’s difficult for a hematologist in general practice to master, Dr. Ma said. “If you have a patient with hemophilia, and you’re in private practice for general hematology/oncology, please send them to a Hemophilia Treatment Center for something like a once-a-year check-in to make sure that the patient is getting comprehensive care.”
Dr. Ma discloses relationships with Takeda (research funding and consultation). Dr. Key discloses relationships with BioMarin and Takeda (advisory board), Novo Nordisk (grants review committee), and Uniqure (steering committee). Dr. Kelkar has no disclosures.
“It’s an amazing time to be a hemophilia provider,” Alice D. Ma, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and bleeding disorder specialist, said in an interview. “There are real options, and it’s very exciting.”
But the drugs come with quirks that hematologists must understand, hemophilia specialists cautioned, and stubborn insurers pose significant obstacles to appropriate care. Also, new generations of medications in development offer both hope and more questions.
By far, the biggest game changer in hemophilia A is a monoclonal antibody called emicizumab (Hemlibra), first approved by the Food and Drug Administration for hemophilia A patients with factor VIII inhibitors and then in 2018 for those without factor VIII inhibitors.
“It’s just been getting a bigger and bigger slice of market share as patients and parents really buy in to how great that product is,” Dr. Ma said. “I do not have any hemophilia A patients with factor VIII inhibitors who aren’t on it. That’s just kind of a no-brainer, no ifs, ands, or buts.”
About 50%-60% of her noninhibitor patients with hemophilia A take the drug, she said.
According to its manufacturer, Genentech, the drug “acts like a bridge, bringing factor IXa and factor X together to allow the blood coagulation process to continue without needing to replace factor VIII.”
Since emicizumab is not a blood factor, Dr. Ma said, it doesn’t cross-react with antibodies or inhibitors. “The other thing that is pretty amazing is that it’s given subcutaneously as opposed to intravenously. It’s given under the skin, kind of like an insulin shot, rather than into a vein.”
Prophylaxis treatments did exist for patients with hemophilia A prior to emicizumab, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and blood disorder specialist Nigel S. Key, MB, ChB, said in an interview. But the treatments didn’t stop all bleeding. “We never really kept them under control,” he said, adding that patients needed to get infusions several times a week. “It was cumbersome and took a lot of compliance, a lot of effort to do it.
Thanks to emicizumab, adult patients don’t have to put on tourniquets and stick butterfly needles into their own veins anymore, and parents no longer need to regularly give factor infusions to their children every 2-3 days, Dr. Ma said. Instead, doses may be required just once a week.
Not every patient is eager to embrace emicizumab
Emicizumab isn’t necessarily an easy sell. Home-care company pharmacies don’t get reimbursed as much for providing emicizumab, compared with factor infusions, Dr. Ma said, and some of these companies are urging parents to not accept the drug for their kids.
Prior experience can also make people wary. According to Dr. Ma, one of her patients – a 62-year-old man – was reluctant to take factor because he’d gotten infected with HIV from an infusion. “For guys of that certain age, factor was death. It was poison, so you tried really hard not to take it.”
The patient now regrets not taking emicizumab earlier. He told Dr. Ma that his joints “do feel better than when I took factor regularly,” and “he really thinks that it has made his hemophilia recede into the background of his life, which is pretty, pretty nice.”
In fact, Dr. Ma said, he dropped a 7-pound rock on his foot but did not need to take factor or be hospitalized because of bleeding. Instead, he simply “watched a bruise form and then get better.”
As for challenges beyond convincing patients to take emicizumab, Dr. Ma said that insurers can may still refuse to pay for it in noninhibitor patients. “Some of them say you have to fail a regular clotting factor to be able to take Hemlibra,” she said, noting that she finds this viewpoint intolerable.
Hemlibra is remarkably expensive, but treatment of bleeds is also pricey. A 2021 study found that median 6-month hemostatic treatment costs in hemophilia A patients fell from more than $176,000 to barely $128,000 after they started taking the drug.
There’s another hitch. Some hematologists don’t realize that the drug can throw off certain coagulation readings. Dr. Ma recalled that a patient with hemophilia A went to a different healthcare facility for a gall bladder operation, and hematology fellows there failed to adjust his factor VIII level – an extraordinarily high 400%, suggesting high coagulation – to reflect his use of emicizumab.
“My patient bled severely and could have lost his life,” Dr. Ma said.
Despite gains, hemophilia B remains hard to treat
The much rarer hemophilia B (the type that affected members of European royal families who descended from Queen Victoria) has proved more difficult to treat than hemophilia A. An estimated 1 in 5,600 males in the United States are born with hemophilia A, compared with 1 in 19,300 males born with hemophilia B. The conditions rarely affect females.
Recombinant factor IX products that replace a missing protein have been improved and can now be given every 7 or 14 days, instead of twice a week, Dr. Key said. As for the future, so-called rebalancing therapies are in phase 3 trials and look promising: “Instead of trying to beef up the proclotting proteins, you’re trying to knock down the anticlotting proteins. ‘Rebalancing’ is a good way to think of it.”
These treatments are also agnostic – like Hemlibra – to the presence of inhibitors, he said.
These drugs could be available within a few years, Dr. Key said. “The major concern is always going to be a risk of thrombosis or clotting. Some of that has only become apparent through clinical trials and require a return to the drawing board to redesign the dosing to hit the safe, sweet spot that prevents bleeds but doesn’t cause clots.”
Dr. Ma agreed that clots are a significant risk from rebalancing agents. “I don’t know that I would put a factor IX patient without an inhibitor on a rebalancing therapy, because we already have pretty darn good therapies for them,” she said. However, factor IX patients with inhibitors do need better treatments, “and we’re all looking forward to the next approved drugs there.”
Hoopla for gene therapy, with questions, as well
The prospect of gene therapy for hemophilia, meanwhile, continues to draw attention as phase 3 trials continue. Potentially, gene therapy could be given just once to patients with hemophilia A or hemophilia B and provide bleeding control indefinitely, Dr. Ma said.
However, Dr. Key wondered whether gene therapy may be useful in hemophilia A, since emicizumab has worked so well. “I just don’t see the tsunami of patients who are wanting to undergo gene therapy in the first few years. I think there’ll be relatively slow uptake due to a lot of factors, including reimbursement.”
Hematologist Amar H. Kelkar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also skeptical that a groundswell of patients will embrace gene therapy, even if one-time treatment lasts for years. Current treatments are working well for many patients, Dr. Kelkar said in an interview, “and comfort with novel therapies may be slow within the community, especially if the treatment effect is expected to be transient. This is the same community that was hit hard by contaminated blood products during the HIV crisis, so it may be hard to convince a large number of patients to adopt a new type of therapy. There’s also the issue of the projected high upfront cost of gene therapies. Of course, I’d love to be wrong, especially if cost issues for the patients can be mitigated.”
Moving forward, both Dr. Ma and Dr. Key urged hematologists to send their hemophilia patients to Hemophilia Treatment Centers so they can get specialized care. There are about 140 of these federally funded centers around the country, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation. Many are located in children’s hospitals.
Hemophilia treatment now requires a subspecialty degree of knowledge that’s difficult for a hematologist in general practice to master, Dr. Ma said. “If you have a patient with hemophilia, and you’re in private practice for general hematology/oncology, please send them to a Hemophilia Treatment Center for something like a once-a-year check-in to make sure that the patient is getting comprehensive care.”
Dr. Ma discloses relationships with Takeda (research funding and consultation). Dr. Key discloses relationships with BioMarin and Takeda (advisory board), Novo Nordisk (grants review committee), and Uniqure (steering committee). Dr. Kelkar has no disclosures.
“It’s an amazing time to be a hemophilia provider,” Alice D. Ma, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and bleeding disorder specialist, said in an interview. “There are real options, and it’s very exciting.”
But the drugs come with quirks that hematologists must understand, hemophilia specialists cautioned, and stubborn insurers pose significant obstacles to appropriate care. Also, new generations of medications in development offer both hope and more questions.
By far, the biggest game changer in hemophilia A is a monoclonal antibody called emicizumab (Hemlibra), first approved by the Food and Drug Administration for hemophilia A patients with factor VIII inhibitors and then in 2018 for those without factor VIII inhibitors.
“It’s just been getting a bigger and bigger slice of market share as patients and parents really buy in to how great that product is,” Dr. Ma said. “I do not have any hemophilia A patients with factor VIII inhibitors who aren’t on it. That’s just kind of a no-brainer, no ifs, ands, or buts.”
About 50%-60% of her noninhibitor patients with hemophilia A take the drug, she said.
According to its manufacturer, Genentech, the drug “acts like a bridge, bringing factor IXa and factor X together to allow the blood coagulation process to continue without needing to replace factor VIII.”
Since emicizumab is not a blood factor, Dr. Ma said, it doesn’t cross-react with antibodies or inhibitors. “The other thing that is pretty amazing is that it’s given subcutaneously as opposed to intravenously. It’s given under the skin, kind of like an insulin shot, rather than into a vein.”
Prophylaxis treatments did exist for patients with hemophilia A prior to emicizumab, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and blood disorder specialist Nigel S. Key, MB, ChB, said in an interview. But the treatments didn’t stop all bleeding. “We never really kept them under control,” he said, adding that patients needed to get infusions several times a week. “It was cumbersome and took a lot of compliance, a lot of effort to do it.
Thanks to emicizumab, adult patients don’t have to put on tourniquets and stick butterfly needles into their own veins anymore, and parents no longer need to regularly give factor infusions to their children every 2-3 days, Dr. Ma said. Instead, doses may be required just once a week.
Not every patient is eager to embrace emicizumab
Emicizumab isn’t necessarily an easy sell. Home-care company pharmacies don’t get reimbursed as much for providing emicizumab, compared with factor infusions, Dr. Ma said, and some of these companies are urging parents to not accept the drug for their kids.
Prior experience can also make people wary. According to Dr. Ma, one of her patients – a 62-year-old man – was reluctant to take factor because he’d gotten infected with HIV from an infusion. “For guys of that certain age, factor was death. It was poison, so you tried really hard not to take it.”
The patient now regrets not taking emicizumab earlier. He told Dr. Ma that his joints “do feel better than when I took factor regularly,” and “he really thinks that it has made his hemophilia recede into the background of his life, which is pretty, pretty nice.”
In fact, Dr. Ma said, he dropped a 7-pound rock on his foot but did not need to take factor or be hospitalized because of bleeding. Instead, he simply “watched a bruise form and then get better.”
As for challenges beyond convincing patients to take emicizumab, Dr. Ma said that insurers can may still refuse to pay for it in noninhibitor patients. “Some of them say you have to fail a regular clotting factor to be able to take Hemlibra,” she said, noting that she finds this viewpoint intolerable.
Hemlibra is remarkably expensive, but treatment of bleeds is also pricey. A 2021 study found that median 6-month hemostatic treatment costs in hemophilia A patients fell from more than $176,000 to barely $128,000 after they started taking the drug.
There’s another hitch. Some hematologists don’t realize that the drug can throw off certain coagulation readings. Dr. Ma recalled that a patient with hemophilia A went to a different healthcare facility for a gall bladder operation, and hematology fellows there failed to adjust his factor VIII level – an extraordinarily high 400%, suggesting high coagulation – to reflect his use of emicizumab.
“My patient bled severely and could have lost his life,” Dr. Ma said.
Despite gains, hemophilia B remains hard to treat
The much rarer hemophilia B (the type that affected members of European royal families who descended from Queen Victoria) has proved more difficult to treat than hemophilia A. An estimated 1 in 5,600 males in the United States are born with hemophilia A, compared with 1 in 19,300 males born with hemophilia B. The conditions rarely affect females.
Recombinant factor IX products that replace a missing protein have been improved and can now be given every 7 or 14 days, instead of twice a week, Dr. Key said. As for the future, so-called rebalancing therapies are in phase 3 trials and look promising: “Instead of trying to beef up the proclotting proteins, you’re trying to knock down the anticlotting proteins. ‘Rebalancing’ is a good way to think of it.”
These treatments are also agnostic – like Hemlibra – to the presence of inhibitors, he said.
These drugs could be available within a few years, Dr. Key said. “The major concern is always going to be a risk of thrombosis or clotting. Some of that has only become apparent through clinical trials and require a return to the drawing board to redesign the dosing to hit the safe, sweet spot that prevents bleeds but doesn’t cause clots.”
Dr. Ma agreed that clots are a significant risk from rebalancing agents. “I don’t know that I would put a factor IX patient without an inhibitor on a rebalancing therapy, because we already have pretty darn good therapies for them,” she said. However, factor IX patients with inhibitors do need better treatments, “and we’re all looking forward to the next approved drugs there.”
Hoopla for gene therapy, with questions, as well
The prospect of gene therapy for hemophilia, meanwhile, continues to draw attention as phase 3 trials continue. Potentially, gene therapy could be given just once to patients with hemophilia A or hemophilia B and provide bleeding control indefinitely, Dr. Ma said.
However, Dr. Key wondered whether gene therapy may be useful in hemophilia A, since emicizumab has worked so well. “I just don’t see the tsunami of patients who are wanting to undergo gene therapy in the first few years. I think there’ll be relatively slow uptake due to a lot of factors, including reimbursement.”
Hematologist Amar H. Kelkar, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also skeptical that a groundswell of patients will embrace gene therapy, even if one-time treatment lasts for years. Current treatments are working well for many patients, Dr. Kelkar said in an interview, “and comfort with novel therapies may be slow within the community, especially if the treatment effect is expected to be transient. This is the same community that was hit hard by contaminated blood products during the HIV crisis, so it may be hard to convince a large number of patients to adopt a new type of therapy. There’s also the issue of the projected high upfront cost of gene therapies. Of course, I’d love to be wrong, especially if cost issues for the patients can be mitigated.”
Moving forward, both Dr. Ma and Dr. Key urged hematologists to send their hemophilia patients to Hemophilia Treatment Centers so they can get specialized care. There are about 140 of these federally funded centers around the country, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation. Many are located in children’s hospitals.
Hemophilia treatment now requires a subspecialty degree of knowledge that’s difficult for a hematologist in general practice to master, Dr. Ma said. “If you have a patient with hemophilia, and you’re in private practice for general hematology/oncology, please send them to a Hemophilia Treatment Center for something like a once-a-year check-in to make sure that the patient is getting comprehensive care.”
Dr. Ma discloses relationships with Takeda (research funding and consultation). Dr. Key discloses relationships with BioMarin and Takeda (advisory board), Novo Nordisk (grants review committee), and Uniqure (steering committee). Dr. Kelkar has no disclosures.