METHODS: An advisory board meeting was conducted with experts in haemophilia care from Asia to understand the heterogeneity in clinical practices and care provision in the region.
FINDINGS: The overall prevalence of haemophilia in Asia ranges between 3 and 8.58/100,000 patients. Haemophilia A was more prevalent as compared to haemophilia B with a ratio of around 5:1. There is under-diagnosis in the region due to lack of diagnosis, registries and/or lack of appropriate facilities in suburban areas. Most patients are referred to the haematologists by their families or primary care physicians, while some are identified during bleeding episodes. Genetic testing faces obstacles like resource constraints, services available at limited centres and unwillingness of patients to participate. Prophylaxis is offered for people with haemophilia (PWH) with a severe bleeding phenotype. Recombinant factors are approved in most countries across the region and are the preferred therapy. The challenges highlighted for not receiving a high standard of care include patients' reluctance to use an intravenous treatment, poor patient compliance due to frequency of infusions, budget constraints and lack of funding, insurance, availability and accessibility of factor concentrates. Prevalence of neutralizing antibodies ranged from 5% to 20% in the region. Use of immune tolerance induction and bypassing agents to treat inhibitors depends on their cost and availability.
CONCLUSION: Haemophilia care in Asia has evolved to a great extent. However, some challenges remain for which a strategic approach along with multi-stakeholder involvement are needed.
METHODS: GARFIELD-VTE is a global, prospective, non-interventional study of real-world treatment practices. In this study, we compared baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 12-month outcomes in Asia and ROW.
RESULTS: Of the 10,684 enrolled patients, 1822 (17.1%) were Asian (China n = 420, Hong Kong n = 98, Japan n = 148, Malaysia n = 244, South Korea n = 343, Taiwan n = 232, Thailand n = 337). Compared with ROW patients, those from Asia were more often female (57.4% vs. 48.0%), non-smokers (74.0% vs. 58.9%) and had a lower BMI (24.8 kg/m2 vs. 29.1 kg/m2). Asian patients were more likely to be managed in the hospital (86.9% vs. 70.4%) and to have active cancer (19.8% vs. 8.1%) or a history of cancer (19.1% vs. 12.0%). Asian patients received no anticoagulation more frequently than ROW patients (6.5% vs. 2.1%). Over 12-months follow-up, the rate of all-cause mortality (per 100 person-years [95% confidence interval]) was higher in Asians (15.2 [13.4-17.3] vs. 5.9 [5.4-6.5]). Adjusted hazard ratios indicated a higher risk of all-cause mortality in Asian patients than the ROW (1.32 [1.08-1.62]). The frequencies of major bleeding and recurrent VTE were similar.
CONCLUSION: Asian patients have different risk profiles, treatment patterns and a higher risk of mortality compared with the ROW.
METHODS: Records of patients with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) were reviewed. Patients' ADAMTS13 activity levels were obtained, along with clinical/laboratory findings relevant to the PLASMIC score. Both PLASMIC scores and PLASMIC-LDH scores, in which LDH replaced traditional lysis markers, were calculated. We generated a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve and compared the area under the curve values (AUC) to determine the predictive ability of each score.
RESULTS: 46 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 34 had ADAMTS13 activity levels of <10%. When the patients were divided into intermediate-to-high risk (scores 5‒7) and low risk (scores 0‒4), the PLASMIC score showed a sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 58.3%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86.8% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 87.5%. The PLASMIC-LDH score had a sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 33.3%, with a PPV of 80.5% and NPV of 80.0%.
CONCLUSION: Our study validated the utility of the PLASMIC score, and demonstrated PLASMIC-LDH as a reasonable alternative in the absence of traditional lysis markers, to help identify high-risk patients for treatment via plasma exchange.
METHODS: We conducted the explorer7 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of concizumab in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (group 1) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (group 2) or were nonrandomly assigned to receive concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (groups 3 and 4). After a treatment pause due to nonfatal thromboembolic events in three patients receiving concizumab, including one from the explorer7 trial, concizumab therapy was restarted with a loading dose of 1.0 mg per kilogram of body weight, followed by 0.2 mg per kilogram daily (potentially adjusted on the basis of concizumab plasma concentration as measured at week 4). The primary end-point analysis compared treated spontaneous and traumatic bleeding episodes in group 1 and group 2. Safety, patient-reported outcomes, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were also assessed.
RESULTS: Of 133 enrolled patients, 19 were randomly assigned to group 1 and 33 to group 2; the remaining 81 were assigned to groups 3 and 4. The estimated mean annualized bleeding rate in group 1 was 11.8 episodes (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 19.9), as compared with 1.7 episodes (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.9) in group 2 (rate ratio, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.29]; P<0.001). The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients receiving concizumab (groups 2, 3, and 4) was 0 episodes. No thromboembolic events were reported after concizumab therapy was restarted. The plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, the annualized bleeding rate was lower with concizumab prophylaxis than with no prophylaxis. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; explorer7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04083781.).