A 360-degree perspective on adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy for haemophilia: Insights from the physician, the nurse and the patient.

BACKGROUND: Adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy for haemophilia has advanced substantially in the last 13 years; recently, three products have received approvals from regulatory authorities. Although the impact on quality of life seems promising, some limitations remain, such as the presence of pre-existing anti-AAV neutralising antibodies and the occurrence of hepatotoxicity. This review follows the CSL Behring-sponsored symposium at the 27th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 that examined the haemophilia gene therapy process from a 360-degree multidisciplinary perspective. Here, the faculty (haematologist, nurse and haemophilia patient) summarised their own viewpoints from the symposium, with the aim of highlighting the key considerations required to engage with gene therapy effectively, for both patients and providers, as well as the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, including with industry. RESULTS: When considering these new therapies, patients face a complex decision-making process, which includes whether gene therapy is right for them at their current stage of life. The authors agreed that collaboration and tailored education across the multidisciplinary team (including patients and their carers/families), starting early in the process and continuing throughout the long-term follow-up period, is key for the success of gene therapy. Additionally, patient expectations, which may surround eligibility, follow-up requirements and treatment outcomes, should be continually explored. During these ongoing discussions, transparent communication of the unknown factors, such as anticipated clotting factor levels, long-term factor expression and safety, and psychological changes, is critical. To ensure efficiency and comprehensiveness, clearly­defined protocols should outline the whole process, which should include the recording and management of long-term effects. CONCLUSION: In order to engage effectively, both patients and providers should be familiar with these key considerations prior to their involvement with the haemophilia gene therapy process. The future after the approval of haemophilia gene therapies remains to be seen and real-world evidence is eagerly awaited.

[Treatment of haemophilia in Austria]. / Hämophilie-Behandlung in Österreich.

This guideline is intended to provide practical guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of haemophilia in Austria. Few randomized controlled interventional trials are available addressing the treatment of haemophilia, therefore recommendations are usually based on low level of evidence and represent expert consensus.This guideline is based on the WFH guideline, published in 2020, and adapted according to the national circumstances and experience.It includes recommendations and suggestions for diagnosis and follow-up visits and pharmacological therapies for treatment and prophylaxis. Further topics comprise special aspects in children and adults with severe haemophilia, outcome measurement, and management of trauma, special bleedings and interventions, including dental procedures, inhibitors, management of haemophilia carriers, and psychosocial aspects.

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.

Identification of the Efficient Enhancer Elements in FVIII-Padua for Gene Therapy Study of Hemophilia A.

Hemophilia A (HA) is a common X-linked recessive hereditary bleeding disorder. Coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) is insufficient in patients with HA due to the mutations in the F8 gene. The restoration of plasma levels of FVIII via both recombinant B-domain-deleted FVIII (BDD-FVIII) and B-domain-deleted F8 (BDDF8) transgenes was proven to be helpful. FVIII-Padua is a 23.4 kb tandem repeat mutation in the F8 associated with a high F8 gene expression and thrombogenesis. Here we screened a core enhancer element in FVIII-Padua for improving the F8 expression. In detail, we identified a 400 bp efficient enhancer element, C400, in FVIII-Padua for the first time. The core enhancer C400 extensively improved the transcription of BDDF8 driven by human elongation factor-1 alpha in HepG2, HeLa, HEK-293T and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) with different genetic backgrounds, as well as iPSCs-derived endothelial progenitor cells (iEPCs) and iPSCs-derived mesenchymal stem cells (iMSCs). The expression of FVIII protein was increased by C400, especially in iEPCs. Our research provides a novel molecular target to enhance expression of FVIII protein, which has scientific value and application prospects in both viral and nonviral HA gene therapy strategies.

The complex, confusing and poorly understood immune responses to AAV-mediated gene transfer in haemophilia-Is more or less immunosuppression required?

Attempts to achieve a functional cure or amelioration of the severe X linked bleeding disorders haemophilia A (factor VIII deficiency) and haemophilia B (factor IX deficiency) using AAV-based vectors have been frustrated by immune responses that limit efficacy and durability. The immune responses include adaptive and innate pathways as well as cytokine mediated inflammation, especially of the target organ cells-hepatocytes. Immune suppression has only been partly effective in clinical trials at ameliorating the immune response and the lack of good animal models has delayed progress in identifying mechanisms and developing more effective approaches to controlling these effects of AAV gene transfer. Here we discuss the arguments for and against more potent immunosuppression to improve factor expression after AAV-mediated gene therapy.

Monitoring for liver cancer post-gene therapy-How much and how often?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has long been recognized as a complication in people with chronic liver disease, particularly those with cirrhosis. Two gene therapies for haemophilia A and B recently approved in Europe and the US utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors designed to target hepatocytes. A number of other AAV gene therapies are undergoing clinical investigation for both liver and extrahepatic diseases, many of which likely transduce hepatocytes as well. Although AAV vectors predominantly persist in episomal forms, concerns about insertional mutagenesis have arisen due to findings in pre-clinical models and in a small subset of human HCC cases featuring wild-type AAV integrations in proximity to potential oncogenes. Despite the absence of any causative link between AAV vector therapy and HCC in approved extrahepatic gene therapies or haemophilia gene therapy trials, the package inserts for the recently approved haemophilia gene therapies advise HCC screening in subsets of individuals with additional risk factors. In this review, we discuss HCC risk factors, compare various screening modalities, discuss optimal screening intervals, and consider when to initiate and possibly discontinue screening. At this early point in the evolution of gene therapy, we lack sufficient data to make evidence-based recommendations on HCC screening. While AAV vectors may eventually be shown to be unassociated with risk of HCC, we presently favour a cautious approach that entails regular surveillance until such time as it is hopefully proven to be unnecessary.

Which patients should be considered for gene therapy.

Gene therapy for haemophilia, utilizing adeno-associated viral vectors (AAVs) and coagulation factor genes, have demonstrated promising results, leading to recent approvals and introduction of the first gene therapy products into clinical practice. For successful and safe use, there are predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the treatment process and associated risks should be thoroughly understood and long-term safety and efficacy carefully evaluated during follow up. As gene therapy becomes more accessible outside of clinical study centers, continuous evaluation of patient eligibility for subsequent AAV-based treatments becomes essential. Thorough evaluation of factors such as liver condition, anti-AAV status, and medical history ensures that gene therapy maximizing benefits while minimizing risks. Apart from fulfilling the established inclusion and exclusion criteria, the success of gene therapy is greatly influenced by the motivation and willingness of patients to accept temporary constraints, such as regular laboratory monitoring, potential use of immunosuppressants, and thorough documentation. Furthermore, various patient-related factors play a significant role in the management and outcomes of gene therapy, making a comprehensive evaluation essential. With the accumulation of more data, there is potential for the expansion of certain inclusion criteria, which may allow for a larger number of eligible patients to benefit from gene therapy. Empowering patients through shared decision-making enables them to thoroughly consider the therapy's potential benefits and risks.

Hepatitis after gene therapy, what are the possible causes?

Hepatitis is a common adverse event following gene therapy for haemophilia, often associated with a loss of transgene expression. Investigating the potential causes and implications of this is crucial for the overall success of treatment. Gene therapy trials using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors have demonstrated promising results marked by increases in factor FVIII and FIX levels and reductions in episodes of bleeding. However, hepatocellular injury characterised by elevations in alanine aminotransferases (ALT) has been noted. This liver injury is typically transient and asymptomatic, posing challenges in determining its clinical significance. Proposed causes encompass immune-mediated responses, notably T cell cytotoxicity in response to the AAV vector, direct liver injury from the viral capsid or transcribed protein via the unfolded protein response and pre-existing liver conditions. Liver biopsy data conducted years post-gene therapy infusion has shown sinusoidal infiltration without significant inflammation. The overall safety profile of gene therapy remains favourable with no evidence drug-induced liver injury (DILI) based on Hy's Law criteria. Essential pre-therapy monitoring and identifying patients at high risk of liver injury should involve liver function tests and non-invasive fibroscans, while novel blood-based biomarkers are under exploration. Further research is required to comprehend the mechanisms underlying transaminitis, loss of transgene expression and long-term effects on the liver, providing insights for optimising gene therapy for haemophilia.

Unresolved hemostasis issues in haemophilia.

Despite rapid technological advancement in factor and nonfactor products in the prevention and treatment of bleeding in haemophilia patients, it is imperative that we acknowledge gaps in our understanding of how hemostasis is achieved. The authors will briefly review three unresolved issues in persons with haemophilia (PwH) focusing on the forgotten function that red blood cells play in hemostasis, the critical role of extravascular (outside circulation) FIX in hemostasis in the context of unmodified and extended half-life FIX products and finally on the role that skeletal muscle myosin plays in prothrombinase assembly and subsequent thrombin generation that could mitigate breakthrough muscle hematomas.

Haemophilic arthropathy: Diagnosis, management, and aging patient considerations.

Gene therapy and universal use of safer, more effective, and personalised prophylactic regimens (factor, and nonfactor) are expected to prevent joint bleeding and promote joint health in persons with haemophilia (PwH). Growing evidence suggests that subclinical bleeding, with active and inactive synovial proliferation, continues and haemophilic arthropathy remains a major morbidity in PwH despite early institution of joint prophylaxis. Joint health assessment is evolving with physical examination scores complementing imaging scores. Point-of-care ultrasound is emerging as a safe, cost-effective, and readily available tool for acute determination of musculoskeletal abnormalities, serial evaluation of joints for sonographic markers of haemophilic arthropathy, and in providing objective insight into the efficacy of new therapies. In acute haemarthrosis, arthrocentesis expedites recovery and prevent the vicious cycle of bleed-synovitis-rebleed. When synovial proliferation develops, a multidisciplinary team approach is critical with haematology, orthopaedics, and physiotherapy involvement. Synovectomy is considered for patients with chronic synovitis that fail conservative management. Non-surgical and minimally invasive procedures should always be offered and considered first. Careful patient selection, screening and early intervention increase the success of these interventions in reducing bleeding, pain, and improving joint function and quality of life. Chemical synovectomy is practical in developing countries, but radioactive synovectomy appears to be more effective. When surgical synovectomy is considered, arthroscopic/minimally invasive approach should be attempted first. In advanced haemophilic arthropathy, joint replacement and arthrodesis can be considered. While excited about the future of haemophilia management, navigating musculoskeletal challenges in the aging haemophilia population is equally important.

Diagnosis and treatment challenges in lower resource countries: State-of-the-art.

The 2022 World Federation of Haemophilia Annual Global Survey (AGS) reports that 454,690 patients with inherited bleeding disorders (IBD) have been identified globally. While this represents noteworthy progress, haemophilia epidemiology data indicate that 75% of people with inherited bleeding disorders living in low-income and low-to-middle-income countries have yet to be diagnosed. The AGS also revealed that 11 billion clotting factor units are available to treat haemophilia A and B globally. Due to a lack of finance, these treatments are unavailable to haemophilia in low-income countries with a consequence lack of access equity for haemophilia treatment in these communities. This sobering reality is not limited to haemophilia but applies to von Willebrand Disease (VWD). While VWD is the most prevalent IBD, only 103,844 people living with this condition have been diagnosed globally. Of the diagnosed patients, only a fraction live in low- or middle-income countries. Moreover, the majority of VWD patients are still treated sub-optimally without replacement therapies or prophylaxis, both of which are now accepted as global standards of care. In this state-of-the-art review, the authors reflect on three issues. First, the minimum elements required to diagnose haemophilia in a resource-constrained setting are identified. Second, this review points to the critical stakeholders and outlines their roles in removing access to haemophilia treatment barriers. Finally, the authors examine von Willebrand disease's ongoing diagnostic and treatment challenges and compare these to haemophilia. With the rapidly evolving novel therapies, the therapeutic landscape of all IBD will likely change for the better.

Benefits and risks of non-factor therapies: Redefining haemophilia treatment goals in the era of new technologies.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decades progress in haemophilia treatment has been remarkable and prophylaxis with clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia A and B has been established as the standard of care in individuals with haemophilia and a severe bleeding phenotype. Besides clotting factor products with prolonged half-life non-factor therapies were developed which enable prophylaxis via subcutaneous administration. Factor VIIIa mimetics like emicizumab facilitate the coagulation pathway and are used in routine clinical practice for indivdiduals with haemophilia A. Rebalancing therapeutic agents like fitusiran, concizumab, marstacimab and serpin PC block the anticoagulant pathway and clinical trials using these products in individuals with haemophilia A and B are ongoing. AIM AND METHODS: A narrative review to asess the benefits and risks of non-factor therapies taking in to account re-defined haemophilia treatment goals. RESULTS: Prophylaxis for prevention of bleeds using non-factor products by subcutaneous administration is effective and results in reductions of bleeding episodes in individuals with haemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors. The treatment with emicizumab showed tolerable safety both in clinical trials and long-term real-world observations with few thrombotic events. In some clinical trials with rebalancing therapies (fitusiran and concizumab) thrombotic events occurred. Monitoring of the haemostatic function of novel therapies especially with concomitant haemostatic treatment is not yet established. CONCLUSION: With the advent of novel therapeutic agents including factor concentrates with ultra-long half-life and improved FVIIIa mimetics aimed at raising the bar of protection into the non-hemophilic range redefinition of haemophilia treatment goals is eagerly needed.

Defining success in haemophilia care - Are we doing it right?

INTRODUCTION: Transformational advances have occurred in the management of haemophilia in the last decade leading to much better outcomes. However, a detailed and critical examination of its assessment and reporting show gaps in many aspects. These are discussed in this review. METHODS: The relevant literature related to different aspects of management of haemophilia was reviewed to identify gaps which need to be addressed. These include detection and diagnosis of haemophilia, documentation and reporting of joint bleeding, its management and methods of reporting in clinical trials and practice, aspects of personalizing care as well as access to therapeutic products and the need for and organization of comprehensive care. RESULTS: Current diagnostic approaches have more than doubled the identified number of persons with haemophilia (PWH) over the last 25 years but still constitute only ∼30% of the expected number. Joint bleeding is the primary indicator of disease severity and treatment efficacy, but there is lack of consistency and standardization in the way it is recorded and reported. Its continued use as an efficacy measure of modern treatments which maintain steady state factor levels or equivalence of >5% will lack sensitivity. The treatment of acute haemarthrosis has focussed on haemostasis and pain control, ignoring the role of inflammation in joint damage. Phenotypic heterogeneity of severe haemophilia has recognized clinical and laboratory variations based on haemostasis but not differences in local response to blood in the joint. At the organizational level, IU/capita provides a relevant measure of access to therapeutic products when the detection rate is ∼100% but is fallaciously low when detection rates are very low. With highly effective modern therapies for haemophilia and nearly no bleeding, the concept of comprehensive care team will need modifications. CONCLUSION: As haemophilia care advances, a deeper dive is needed into the details of various aspects its management to ensure consistency and contemporary relevance.

Outcomes and outcome measures.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in haemophilia treatment have resulted in a near-normal life expectancy, lower burden of bleeding and treatment, and improved quality of life in high-income countries. Bleeding rate is approaching zero and novel parameters should be evaluated to assess the efficacy of treatment not only from the clinical point of view by using new methodologies (e.g. joint health assessment), but also from the patient's perspective (e.g. pain, quality of life, treatment satisfaction). METHODS AND RESULTS: This approach should be aimed at combining objective clinical methodologies and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, some instruments used for assessing PROs are still suboptimal and not properly validated. Recent evidence suggests that these tools can take advantage from a more personalized designed approach and could be effectively improved and serve to facilitate the patient's self-evaluation. For other congenital bleeding disorders (BDs), a set of patient-relevant outcomes has been also defined that overlap substantially those of haemophilia, including bleeding, side effects and complications, and PROs, such as pain, physical functioning, impact on daily life including school and work and mental health. There is a growing focus on addressing women-specific outcomes in BDs, reflecting an increased awareness of the unique challenges faced by women in this context. However, the development of tailored tools is imperative to further advance the progress in managing women with BDs, ensuring more accurate monitoring and personalized care. CONCLUSIONS: How incorporating these outcome measures in the process of approval of novel treatments for these disorders by regulatory authorities remains to be established.

Current and emerging gene therapies for haemophilia A and B.

INTRODUCTION: After decades of stumbling clinical development, the first gene therapies for haemophilia A and B have been commercialized and have normalized factor (F)VIII and factor (F)IX levels in some individuals in the long term. Several other clinical programs testing adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector gene therapy are at various stages of clinical testing. DISCUSSION: Multiyear follow-up in phase 1/2 and 3 studies showed long-term and sometimes curative but widely variable and unpredictable efficacy. Liver toxicities, mostly low-grade, occur in the 1st year in at least some individuals in all haemophilia A and B trials and are poorly understood. Wide variability and unpredictability of outcome and slow decline of FVIII levels are a major disadvantage because immune responses to AAV vectors preclude repeat dosing, which otherwise could improve suboptimal or restore declining expression, while overexpression may predispose to thrombosis. Long-term safety outcomes will need lifelong monitoring because AAV vectors infused at high doses integrate into chromosomes at rates that raise questions about potential oncogenicity and necessitate vigilance. Alternative gene transfer systems employing gene editing and/or non-viral vectors are under development and promise to overcome some limitations of the current state of the art for both haemophilia A and B. CONCLUSIONS: AAV gene therapies for haemophilia have now become new treatment options but not universal cures. AAV is a powerful but imperfect gene transfer platform. Biobetter FVIII transgenes may help solve some problems plaguing gene therapy for haemophilia A. Addressing variability and unpredictability of efficacy, and delivery of gene therapy to ineligible patient subgroups may require different gene transfer systems, most of which are not ready for clinical translation yet but bring innovations needed to overcome the current limitations of gene therapy.