Novel mechanisms of action of emerging therapies of hereditary thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

INTRODUCTION: Hereditary thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (hTTP) is caused by deficiency of plasma ADAMTS13 activity, resulting from ADAMTS13 mutations. ADAMTS13 cleaves ultra large von Willebrand factor (VWF), thus reducing its multimer sizes. Hereditary deficiency of plasma ADAMTS13 activity leads to the formation of excessive platelet-VWF aggregates in small arterioles and capillaries, resulting in hTTP. AREAS COVERED: PubMed search from 1956 to 2024 using thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and therapy identified 3,675 articles. Only the articles relevant to the topic were selected for discussion, which focuses on pathophysiology, clinical presentations, and mechanisms of action of emerging therapeutics for hTTP. Current therapies include infusion of plasma, or coagulation factor VIII, or recombinant ADAMTS13. Emerging therapies include anti-VWF A1 aptamers or nanobody and gene therapies with adeno-associated viral vector or self-inactivated lentiviral vector or a sleeping beauty transposon system for a long-term expression of a functional ADAMTS13 enzyme. EXPERT OPINION: Frequent plasma infusion remains to be the standard of care in most parts of the world, while recombinant ADAMTS13 has become the treatment of choice for hTTP in some of the Western countries. The success of gene therapies in preclinical models may hold a promise for future development of these novel approaches for a cure of hTTP.

Inhibitor eradication and treatment for acquired hemophilia A.

INTRODUCTION: Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a rare hemorrhagic autoimmune disorder characterized by autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII (FVIII). In approximately half of the cases AHA does not recognize any cause (idiopathic form), while in the other cases it may be triggered by autoimmune disorders, cancers, drugs, infections, or pregnancy. Besides treating the underlying disorder, specific AHA treatment includes management of bleeding, if necessary, and inhibitor eradication. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review summarizes the main epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics of AHA. In particular, it is focused on the current therapeutic options for the inhibitor eradication, also showing the latest findings on the innovative therapies. A literature search strategy was performed, without temporal limits, through Medline and PubMed electronic databases. EXPERT OPINION: Various first-line and second-line immunosuppressive agents are currently available for the management of AHA. Among the latter, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab has been the object of intense research during the last years from investigators as innovative promising eradicating therapy for AHA. Preliminary data from the studies support the use of this drug as a first-line option for newly diagnosed AHA cases.

Bleeding Reversal With Antifibrinolytics or Cryoprecipitate Following Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Case Series.

Patients who develop an intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) following thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) have a mortality rate as high as 50%. Treatment options include blood products, such as cryoprecipitate, or antifibrinolytics, such as tranexamic acid (TXA) or ε-aminocaproic acid (EACA). Current guidelines recommend cryoprecipitate first-line despite limited data to support one agent over another. In addition, compared to antifibrinolytics, cryoprecipitate is higher in cost and requires thawing before use. This case series seeks to characterize the management of thrombolytic reversal at a single institution as well as provide additional evidence for antifibrinolytics in this setting. Patients were included for a retrospective review if they met the following criteria: presented between January 2011-January 2017, were >18 years of age, were admitted for AIS, received a thrombolytic, and received TXA EACA, or cryoprecipitate. Twelve patients met the inclusion criteria. Ten (83.3%) developed an ICH, one (8.3%) experienced gastrointestinal bleeding, and one (8.3%) had bleeding at the site of knee arthroscopy. Eleven patients received cryoprecipitate (median dose: 10 units), three received TXA (median dose: 1,000 mg), and one patient received EACA (13 g). TXA was administered faster than the first blood product at a mean time of 19 min and 137 min, respectively. Hemorrhagic expansion (N = 8, 66.67%) and inhospital mortality (N = 7, 58.3%) were high. While limited by its small sample size, this case series demonstrates significant variability in reversal strategies for thrombolysis-associated bleeding. It also provides additional evidence for the role of antifibrinolytics in this setting.

Immunogenicity profile of rurioctocog alfa pegol in previously treated patients with severe congenital hemophilia A.

ABSTRACT: Rurioctocog alfa pegol is an extended-half-life full-length recombinant factor VIII (FVIII) bound to 20-kDa polyethylene glycol (PEG) that has been shown to be well tolerated and efficacious in the treatment and prevention of bleeding events in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A. Here, we present a comprehensive analysis of immunogenicity data collected during 6 clinical studies of rurioctocog alfa pegol, including a total of 360 unique previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A. The analysis included treatment-emerging FVIII-neutralizing antibodies (FVIII inhibitors); preexisting and treatment-emerging antibodies binding to FVIII, PEG-FVIII, or PEG; and treatment-emerging antibodies binding to Chinese hamster ovary host cell proteins. Moreover, the potential association between the presence of these binding antibodies and adverse events (AEs) observed in patients was investigated, and the potential impact of these antibodies on the incremental recovery of rurioctocog alfa pegol in patients was analyzed. Overall, the data indicate that rurioctocog alfa pegol is not associated with any unexpected immunogenicity characteristics. Of 360 patients, 1 patient developed a transient FVIII inhibitor with a titer of 0.6 Bethesda units per mL, which was not associated with any serious AEs. Antibodies binding to FVIII, PEG-FVIII, or PEG were not detected at the time when the inhibitor was present. Moreover, 54 of 360 patients either entered the clinical studies with preexisting binding antibodies or developed these antibodies after exposure to rurioctocog alfa pegol. These antibodies were transient in most patients and did not show any causal relationship to either AEs or spontaneous bleeding episodes.

Predicting joint involvement through tailored prophylaxis in severe haemophilia A, is it possible?

INTRODUCTION: Tailored prophylaxis is the current treatment regimen for patients with severe haemophilia A. Recently, published guidelines describe two possible approaches, based on clinical characteristics or estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters. However, both have strengths and weaknesses, and their characteristics need to be integrated to optimize treatment appropriately. In this paper, we present a model that considers together the characteristics of prophylaxis and the relevance of each. METHODS: The age at initiation of prophylaxis, number of bleeding events, treatment regimen, therapeutic adherence, FVIII trough levels, and joint status were analyzed in 59 patients followed at La Paz University Hospital between January 2000 and December 2019. RESULTS: The mean duration of primary prophylaxis of 113.37 ± 57.79 months. Eighty-three percent (n = 49) had no joint status involvement at the end of follow-up (HJHS and HEAD-US = 0). The median ABR was 0.7 (IQR 0.2 -1.0) and 54.2% presented trough levels of FVIII during follow-up >1 IU/dL. 72,9% engaged in some type of physical activity and overall adherence was over 85% in all patients evaluated. The regression analysis performed, considering all these factors, showed that the initiation of prophylaxis before 21 months of age was the most relevant protective factor against the appearance of joint involvement (OR 88.33 p.031 CI 95% 1.49-5224.40) CONCLUSION: Early initiation of prophylaxis was the most relevant factor in the protection of joint status. More comprehensive analysis models adapted to the characteristics of each population, are needed to adequately individualize treatment.

Primary prophylaxis implementation and long-term joint outcomes in Swedish haemophilia A patients.

INTRODUCTION: Primary prophylaxis is the gold standard in severe haemophilia A (SHA) but time to escalate the prophylaxis regimen varies. AIM: Assess prophylaxis implementation and long-term joint health outcomes in SHA with primary prophylaxis. METHODS: Adult male patients born after 1980, with SHA on primary prophylaxis, started before the age of 3 years and second joint bleed, and no history of FVIII inhibitors, were enrolled. Repeated joint-health examinations were performed with HJHS or HEAD-US; VERITAS-PRO assessed adherence. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled with, at inclusion, median age 33.5 years, annualized bleed rate and joint bleed rate 0, and FVIII consumption 4232 IU/kg/year, respectively. The median age was 1.2 years, at prophylaxis start once weekly with a median FVIII dose of 47.7 IU/kg, and 1.7 years, by the time escalation to a final regimen had occurred, with a median infusion frequency of thrice weekly and FVIII dose 41.7 IU/kg, respectively. Older age correlated with later transition to escalated prophylaxis (p < .001). Longer time to escalated prophylaxis correlated to more bleeds (p < .001). Median HJHS increased slowly, reaching 4 at 35-40 years. HJHS at 15-20 years correlated with higher HJHS afterwards. Median total HEAD-US score was 1 and correlated with HJHS (p < .001). Median VERITAS-PRO score was 36, indicating good treatment adherence. CONCLUSION: Primary prophylaxis is effective but does not completely prevent the gradual development of arthropathy in SHA. Joint assessments with HJHS should start at an early age, as they correlate with arthropathy in later life. Prophylaxis escalation should proceed expeditiously to prevent bleeds.

Clinical and economic burden of immune tolerance induction in entire patients with hemophilia A: Insights from a real-world Korean setting.

INTRODUCTION: The most notable challenge facing hemophilia A treatment is the development of inhibitors against factor VIII, resulting in increased clinical and socioeconomic burdens due to the need for expensive bypassing agents (BPAs). Although immune tolerance induction (ITI) is currently the primary approach for inhibiting and reducing the inhibitors, the lengthy duration of ITI necessitates the continued use of BPA to manage bleeding episodes. In this study, we aimed to obtain real-world evidence on the clinical and economic aspects and associated burdens experienced by patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors undergoing ITI in Korea. METHODS: Claims data from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2020, were used in this study. The study cohort comprised patients with hemophilia A undergoing ITI, who were categorized into three groups: successful, failed, or continuation of ITI. We evaluated clinical and economic burdens, including monthly healthcare visits, medication costs, and total medical expenses. RESULTS: The study involved 33 cases of ITI across 32 patients. Excluding seven continuation cases where success could not be determined at the observation point, the estimated success rate of ITI was 80.8 %. The median duration of ITI for all patients was 25.7 months. While no significant disparities were noted in the ITI duration between successful and unsuccessful cases (24.51 vs. 25.66 months), substantial discrepancies were observed in the duration of BPA usage (11.10 vs. 25.66 months) and the number of prescribed BPAs (1.79 vs. 2.97). CONCLUSION: Successful ITI reduced both clinical and economic burdens, resulting in decreased monthly medication expenses and overall medical costs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec and Prophylactic Factor VIII Replacement in Severe Hemophilia A.

INTRODUCTION: A prospective, non-interventional study (270-902) followed 294 adults with severe hemophilia A (SHA) receiving prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII). From these participants, 112 rolled over into a single-arm, multicenter, phase 3 trial (GENEr8-1; NCT03370913) that evaluated efficacy and safety of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, a gene therapy that provides endogenous FVIII in individuals with SHA. Participants from 270-902 who did not roll over provide an opportunity for a contemporaneous external control. Therefore, the comparative effectiveness of valoctocogene roxaparvovec vs FVIII prophylaxis was evaluated using propensity scoring (PS). METHODS: This post hoc analysis compared 112 participants from GENEr8-1 (treated cohort) to 73 participants in 270-902 who did not enroll in GENEr8-1 (control cohort). The primary analysis used standardized mortality ratio weighting to re-weight baseline characteristics of the control cohort to better match the treated cohort. Mean annualized bleeding rates (ABR) for treated and all bleeds were compared between cohorts along with the proportion of participants with zero bleeds (treated and all bleeds). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: PS adjustments reduced differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. Mean treated (4.40 vs 0.85; P < 0.001) and all (5.01 vs 1.54; P < 0.001) ABR were significantly lower, and the proportions of participants with zero treated bleeds (82.1% vs 32.9%; P < 0.001) and all bleeds (58.0% vs 28.5%; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in GENEr8-1. CONCLUSIONS: PS-adjusted analyses were consistent with prior intra-individual comparisons. Compared with participants receiving prophylactic FVIII, the participants receiving valoctocogene roxaparvovec experienced lower ABR, and a higher proportion had zero bleeds. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03370913.

Hemophilia A is a bleeding disorder where blood is unable to clot properly because of a missing protein called factor VIII (FVIII). Individuals with hemophilia A have an increased risk of prolonged bleeding episodes that can be deadly. To prevent bleeding, people with severe hemophilia A need to routinely inject treatment into the skin or vein (prophylaxis). While effective, some people find the time and effort needed to maintain frequent injections difficult, since some forms of the prophylaxis must be administered in a hospital setting. Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a gene therapy where a single injection provides instructions to the liver of individuals with hemophilia A to make the missing protein (FVIII). Then, their own liver cells can produce FVIII protein and prevent bleeding episodes. The valoctocogene roxaparvovec clinical trial compared the number of treated bleeding episodes participants had prior to gene therapy, while using prophylaxis, with the number of treated bleeding episodes after gene therapy. On average, after gene therapy, participants had 4.1 fewer treated bleeding episodes per year. In this study, mathematical models were used to explore how differences in participant's physical characteristics, such as body weight or medical history, might influence the effectiveness of gene therapy. Even when considering differences in the participants' physical characteristics, the gene therapy reduced treated bleeding episodes by 3.6 events per year. This study confirms results originally presented from the valoctocogene roxaparvovec clinical trial and reinforces confidence in the ability of valoctocogene roxaparvovec to reduce bleeding outcomes for participants with hemophilia A.

Mutational landscape, inhibitor development, and health-care burden in non-severe haemophilia A: A single-centre Australian experience.

AIM: To characterise non-severe haemophilia A (HA) patients enrolled on the Australian Bleeding Disorders Registry (ABDR) treated through a state-wide Haemophilia Treatment Centre (HTC) with respect to their mutational profile, inhibitor risk and health-care burden. METHOD: We conducted a single-centre observational study of all non-severe HA patients treated at the Alfred Health HTC registered on the ABDR as of the 26th July 2023. Data were extracted from the ABDR and electronic medical record (EMR) regarding demographics, severity, genetic testing, treatment, inhibitors, bleeding events and procedures. Inhibitor risk was calculated as a function of exposure days (EDs) of FVIII replacement. RESULTS: There were 289 non-severe HA patients treated at the Alfred HTC registered on the ABDR as of July 2023, all of whom were adult patients aged > 18 years old. Genotyping had been performed in 228/289 (78.9%). Of the inhibitor analysis population, 14/193 (7.3%) had an inhibitor. The cumulative incidence of inhibitor development at 75 EDs was 31% (95% CI 13%-46%). The median cost of bypassing agents per inhibitor patient was $57,087.50/year. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate a relatively high inhibitor prevalence and incidence risk in non-severe HA compared to previously published work, although this may partly reflect a smaller population size. High rates of genotyping have allowed representative mutational characterisation. The burden of care imposed by non-severe HA in terms of bleeding events, procedures and bypassing agent cost is larger than expected, particularly within the inhibitor population.

Bleeding control improves after switching to emicizumab: Real-world experience of 177 children in the PedNet registry.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the rapid uptake of emicizumab in the paediatric haemophilia A (HA) population, real-world data on the safety and efficacy is limited. AIM: To report on bleeding and safety in paediatric patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the multicentre prospective observational PedNet Registry (NCT02979119). Children with haemophilia A, and ≥50 FVIII exposures or inhibitors present receiving emicizumab maintenance therapy were analysed. Data were summarized as medians with interquartile range (IQR, P25-P75). Mean (95% confidence interval (CI)), annualized (joint) bleeding rate (A(J)BR) during emicizumab and ≤2 years before emicizumab prophylaxis were modelled and compared using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Total of 177 patients started emicizumab at median 8.6 years (IQR 4.8-13.1), most had no FVIII inhibitors (64%). Follow up before emicizumab was median: 1.68 years (IQR: 1.24-1.90) and during emicizumab: 1.32 years (IQR: .94-2.11). In patients without inhibitors, mean ABR reduced after starting emicizumab from 2.41 (CI 1.98-2.95) to 1.11 (CI .90-1.36, p < .001), while AJBR reduced from.74 (CI .56-.98) to.31 (CI .21-.46, p < .001). Concordantly, in patients with inhibitors, mean ABR reduced from 5.08 (CI 4.08-6.38) to .75 (CI .56-1.01, p < .001), while AJBR reduced from 1.90 (CI 1.42-2.58) to .34 (CI .21-.56, p < .001). Five emicizumab-related adverse events were reported (3% of the cohort), including one patient with antidrug antibodies. CONCLUSION: This study showed improved bleeding control compared to previous treatment and a favourable safety profile during emicizumab therapy in paediatric haemophilia A patients.

Clinical and treatment characteristics of infants and toddlers less than 2 years of age with hemophilia.

ABSTRACT: Infants and toddlers (ITs) with hemophilia have unique bleeding features. Factor prophylaxis has been shown to decrease the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), which supports recommendations to begin at a young age. Clinical and demographic characteristics were analyzed for 883 ITs ≤2 years old with hemophilia A and B, seen at US Hemophilia Treatment Centers and enrolled in the Community Counts Registry, a surveillance program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ICH in the first 2 years of life was seen in 68 of 883 (7.7%) ITs, of whom 8 of 68 (11.8%) were on continuous prophylaxis at the time of ICH. ITs in this study usually started prophylaxis within the first year of life (mean, 10.3 months), with earlier ages of prophylaxis initiation in later birth cohorts in ITs with hemophilia A. Compared with those without a family history (FH) of hemophilia, known positive FH of hemophilia was associated with earlier age of diagnosis (P ≤ .0001) and decreased rates of vaginal delivery (P = .0006). The use of factor VIII mimetics and extended half-life clotting factor prophylaxis increased with later birth cohorts for ITs with hemophilia A and B. The study highlights that ICH rates in ITs with hemophilia remains substantial and underscores the need for further research to identify modifiable risk factors to prevent ICH by earlier diagnosis and initiating prophylaxis early, even within the first month of life.

Cyclophosphamide vs rituximab for eradicating inhibitors in acquired hemophilia A: A randomized trial in 108 patients.

BACKGROUND: Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a rare autoimmune disorder due to autoantibodies against Factor VIII, with a high mortality risk. Treatments aim to control bleeding and eradicate antibodies by immunosuppression. International recommendations rely on registers and international expert panels. METHODS: CREHA, an open-label randomized trial, compared the efficacy and safety of cyclophosphamide and rituximab in association with steroids in patients with newly diagnosed AHA. Participants were treated with 1 mg/kg prednisone daily and randomly assigned to receive either 1.5-2 mg/kg/day cyclophosphamide orally for 6 weeks, or 375 mg/m2 rituximab once weekly for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was complete remission over 18 months. Secondary endpoints included time to achieve complete remission, relapse occurrence, mortality, infections and bleeding, and severe adverse events. RESULTS: Recruitment was interrupted because of new treatment recommendations after 108 patients included (58 cyclophosphamide, 50 rituximab). After 18 months, 39 cyclophosphamide patients (67.2 %) and 31 rituximab patients (62.0 %) were in complete remission (OR 1.26; 95 % CI, 0.57 to 2.78). In the poor prognosis group (FVIII < 1 IU/dL, inhibitor titer > 20 BU mL-1), significantly more remissions were observed with cyclophosphamide (22 patients, 78.6 %) than with rituximab (12 patients, 48.0 %; p = 0.02). Relapse rates, deaths, severe infections, and bleeding were similar in the 2 groups. In patients with severe infection, cumulative doses of steroids were significantly higher than in patients without infection (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Cyclophosphamide and rituximab showed similar efficacy and safety. As first line, cyclophosphamide seems preferable, especially in poor prognosis patients, as administered orally and less expensive. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT01808911.

Prophylactic Treatment of Children with Hemophilia in Sweden.

Hemophilia A/B are caused by deficiency or lack of coagulation factors VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX), respectively, in plasma. A person with hemophilia develops bleeding in the joints and muscles at an early age, which, if left untreated, leads to early arthropathy. Preventive treatment can be achieved by regular (prophylactic) administration of FVIII/FIX. In 1958, this was implemented on a small scale in Sweden with FVIII in patients with severe hemophilia A, and in those with hemophilia B in 1972 when FIX became available. However, there were problems with human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis infection from contaminated blood products. In the 1990s, recombinant FVIII and FIX concentrates were introduced. The major remaining problems then were the development of inhibitors, and the need for a venous route for the injections in very young children. High-titer inhibitors were treated by immune tolerance induction according to a modified model of the original Bonn high-dose protocol. A central venous line, i.e., Port-A-Cath, has enabled early prophylaxis in many children with poor venous access and has enabled the early start of home treatment with adequate injection frequency. Scoring systems for X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and function of joints were developed early in Sweden and have been widely disseminated worldwide, partly with modifications. Extended half-life products with half-life increased three to five times have been developed, which can provide superior bleed protection when dosed once-weekly and can maintain therapeutic trough levels when administered less frequently. The ultimate prophylaxis therapy in the future may be gene therapy.

The effects of emicizumab on in vitro coagulation and fibrinolysis parameters in patients with disseminated intravascular coagulation with and without addition of anti-FVIII antibody.

BACKGROUND: Emicizumab (Emi) is used as haemostatic prophylaxis for patients with haemophilia A (PwHA). Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a condition characterized by persistent systemic activation of coagulation, but there is yet no information on coagulation and fibrinolysis potentials in Emi-treated PwHA with DIC. AIM: To examine the effect of Emi on coagulation and fibrinolysis potentials in HA-model DIC plasmas. METHODS: Plasma from a patient with sepsis-DIC (seven patients) was treated with anti-factor (F)VIII monoclonal antibody (HA-model DIC plasma) and incubated with Emi (50 µg/mL). The plasma was then assessed using clot-fibrinolysis waveform analysis (CFWA). Coagulation and fibrinolysis parameters were expressed as ratios relative to normal plasma (|min1|-ratio and |FL-min1|-ratio, respectively). PATIENTS AND RESULTS: In case 1, coagulant potential was slightly high and fibrinolytic potential was extremely low, presenting a coagulant-dominant state (|min1|-ratio/|FL-min1|-ratio: 1.1/.38). In cases 2-5, fibrinolytic potential was not suppressed, but there were marked hypercoagulant potentials, indicating relative coagulant-dominant states. In case 6, coagulant and fibrinolytic potentials were increased but well balanced (|min1|-ratio/|FL-min1|-ratio: 1.38/1.28). In case 7, both potentials were severely deteriorated in not only CFWA but also the thrombin/plasmin generation assay. The addition of Emi into the HA-model DIC plasmas increased |min1|-ratio values in all cases, but the coagulant potentials did not exceed the initial ones (DIC plasma before treatment with anti-FVIII antibody). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of Emi in the HA-model DIC plasma improved coagulation potentials, but did not increase coagulation potentials beyond those of DIC plasma in non-HA states.

In vivo LNP-CRISPR Approaches for the Treatment of Hemophilia.

Hemophilia is a genetic disorder that is caused by mutations in coagulation factor VIII (hemophilia A) or IX (hemophilia B) genes resulting in blood clotting disorders. Despite advances in therapies, such as recombinant proteins and products with extended half-lives, the treatment of hemophilia still faces two major limitations: the short duration of therapeutic effect and production of neutralizing antibodies against clotting factors (inhibitor). To overcome these limitations, new hemophilia treatment strategies have been established such as gene therapy, bispecific antibody, and rebalancing therapy. Although these strategies have shown promising results, it is difficult to achieve a permanent therapeutic effect. Advances in the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) technology have allowed sustainable treatment by correcting mutated genes. Since genome editing generates irreversible changes in host genome, safety must be ensured by delivering target organs. Therefore, the delivery tool of the CRISPR system is crucial for safe, accurate, and efficient genome editing. Recently, non-viral vector lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) have emerged as safer tools for delivering CRISPR systems than other viral vectors. Several previous hemophilia pre-clinical studies using LNP-CRISPR showed that sufficient and sustainable therapeutic effects, which means that LNP-CRISPR-mediated genome-editing therapy can be a valid option for the treatment of hemophilia. In this paper, we summarize the latest advancements in the successful treatment of hemophilia and the potential of CRISPR-mediated genome-editing therapy using LNPs.

How much prophylaxis is enough in haemophilia?

INTRODUCTION: Prophylaxis has become standard of care for all persons with haemophilia (PWH) with a severe phenotype. However, 'standard prophylaxis' with either factor or non-factor therapies (currently only emicizumab available) is prohibitively expensive for much of the world. We sought to address the question of 'How much prophylaxis is enough?' and 'Can it be individualized?' and specifically 'Can emicizumab be individualized?'. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on prophylaxis in haemophilia since its inception in the 1950s to the present, the development of more and less intense factor prophylaxis regimens and their outcomes and additionally the published outcomes of prophylaxis with low dose emicizumab. RESULTS: What these experiences collectively show is that low dose emicizumab does result in significant benefits to patients whilst being much less expensive than a "one size fits all" emicizumab prophylaxis approach. We also took note that some non-factor therapies still in development are individualized given that high doses of these can potentially put patients at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis is now clearly accepted as standard of care for PWH with a severe phenotype but now in a very short time a large assortment of different treatment options for prophylaxis have become/are becoming available and the haemophilia community will need to determine how to best use these recognizing that no 'one treatment fits all'.

Haemophilia in the era of novel therapies: Where do inhibitors feature in the new landscape?

INTRODUCTION: The advent of therapeutic recombinant factor VIII (FVIII) and factor IX (FIX) protein infusions revolutionized the care of persons with haemophilia in the 1990s. It kicked off an era with the increasing use of prophylactic factor infusions for patients and transformed conversations around the ideal trough activity levels as well as the ultimate goals in tailored, individualized care. Our knowledge surrounding the immunologic basis of inhibitor development and treatment derives from a time when patients were receiving frequent factor infusions and focused on immune tolerance induction following inhibitor development. DISCUSSION: More recently, care was revolutionized again in haemophilia A with the approval of emicizumab, a bispecific antibody mimicking activated FVIII function, to prevent bleeding. The use of emicizumab prophylaxis has resulted in a significantly slower accumulation of factor exposure days and continued effective prophylaxis in the case of inhibitor development. While emicizumab is effective at reducing the frequency of bleeding events in patients with haemophilia A, management of breakthrough bleeds, trauma, and surgeries still requires additional treatment. Ensuring that FVIII is a therapeutic option, particularly for life-threatening bleeding events and major surgeries is critical to optimizing the care of persons with haemophilia A. Other novel non-factor concentrate therapies, including rebalancing agents, will dramatically change the landscape for persons with haemophilia B with inhibitors. CONCLUSION: This review discusses the changing landscape regarding the timing of inhibitor development and management strategies after inhibitor development, stressing the importance of education across the community to continue to vigilantly monitor for inhibitors and be prepared to treat persons with inhibitors.