User login
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
Venetoclax combos prolong progression-free CLL survival
Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.
“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).
However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.
Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.
For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.
However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.
Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.
In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.
The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.
The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.
Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).
The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.
Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.
The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).
Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.
Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).
Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.
EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.
“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.
The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”
Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.
Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.
“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).
However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.
Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.
For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.
However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.
Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.
In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.
The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.
The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.
Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).
The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.
Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.
The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).
Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.
Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).
Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.
EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.
“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.
The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”
Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.
Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.
“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).
However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.
Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.
For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.
However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.
Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.
In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.
The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.
The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.
Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).
The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.
Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.
The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).
Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.
Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).
Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.
EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.
“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.
The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”
Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.
Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EHA 2022
Severe COVID-19 and blood cancer: Plasma therapy may help
, new research shows.
The study demonstrated that “plasma from convalescent or vaccinated individuals shortens the time to improvement in hematological and solid cancer patients with severe COVID-19” and “prolongs overall survival,” said study coauthor Maike Janssen, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University Hospital.
Dr. Janssen presented the study findings at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association held in Vienna.
Although people with COVID-19 do not appear to benefit from treatment with convalescent plasma, some data indicate that certain patients who cannot mount a strong immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection may benefit.
In this recent multicenter study, 134 patients with confirmed COVID-19 whose oxygen saturation was 94% or lower were randomly assigned to undergo treatment with convalescent or vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma (n = 68) or to receive standard of care (n = 66). Patients fell into four clinical groups: those with a hematologic malignancy or who had undergone active cancer therapy for any cancer within the past 24 months; those with chronic immunosuppression; those between the ages of 50 and 75 with lymphopenia and/or elevated D-dimer levels; and those older than 75 years.
The convalescent or vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma was administered in two bags (238-337 mL plasma each) from different donors on days 1 and 2. Only plasma from donors with high levels of neutralizing activity (titers above 1:80) were included. The primary endpoint was time to improvement by 2 points on a 7-point scale or discharge from the hospital. The secondary endpoint was improvement in overall survival.
The authors found that overall, patients in the plasma group demonstrated a shorter time to improvement – median of 12.5 days, vs. 18 days – but the difference was not significant (P = .29).
However, for the subgroup of 56 patients with hematologic/solid cancers, the time to improvement was significantly shorter: 13 days vs. 31 days (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; P = .003).
Similarly, plasma therapy did not improve overall survival in the study population overall – there were 12 deaths in the plasma group over 80 days, vs. 15 in the control group (P = .80). Patients in the hematologic/solid cancer subgroup who received plasma therapy did demonstrate significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.28; P = .042).
No similar significant differences in time to improvement or overall survival were observed in the other three groups. “We found that plasma did not improve outcomes in immune-competent patients with other risk factors and/or older age,” Dr. Janssen said.
Although study enrollment ended when the Omicron variant began surging, Dr. Janssen noted that plasma from Omicron patients may also be of benefit to those with hematologic cancers.
“We have treated some patients in individual cases using plasma from Omicron patients who were already vaccinated or with breakthrough infections, and we did see benefits in those cases,” she noted.
The study was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany. Dr. Janssen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
The study demonstrated that “plasma from convalescent or vaccinated individuals shortens the time to improvement in hematological and solid cancer patients with severe COVID-19” and “prolongs overall survival,” said study coauthor Maike Janssen, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University Hospital.
Dr. Janssen presented the study findings at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association held in Vienna.
Although people with COVID-19 do not appear to benefit from treatment with convalescent plasma, some data indicate that certain patients who cannot mount a strong immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection may benefit.
In this recent multicenter study, 134 patients with confirmed COVID-19 whose oxygen saturation was 94% or lower were randomly assigned to undergo treatment with convalescent or vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma (n = 68) or to receive standard of care (n = 66). Patients fell into four clinical groups: those with a hematologic malignancy or who had undergone active cancer therapy for any cancer within the past 24 months; those with chronic immunosuppression; those between the ages of 50 and 75 with lymphopenia and/or elevated D-dimer levels; and those older than 75 years.
The convalescent or vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma was administered in two bags (238-337 mL plasma each) from different donors on days 1 and 2. Only plasma from donors with high levels of neutralizing activity (titers above 1:80) were included. The primary endpoint was time to improvement by 2 points on a 7-point scale or discharge from the hospital. The secondary endpoint was improvement in overall survival.
The authors found that overall, patients in the plasma group demonstrated a shorter time to improvement – median of 12.5 days, vs. 18 days – but the difference was not significant (P = .29).
However, for the subgroup of 56 patients with hematologic/solid cancers, the time to improvement was significantly shorter: 13 days vs. 31 days (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; P = .003).
Similarly, plasma therapy did not improve overall survival in the study population overall – there were 12 deaths in the plasma group over 80 days, vs. 15 in the control group (P = .80). Patients in the hematologic/solid cancer subgroup who received plasma therapy did demonstrate significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.28; P = .042).
No similar significant differences in time to improvement or overall survival were observed in the other three groups. “We found that plasma did not improve outcomes in immune-competent patients with other risk factors and/or older age,” Dr. Janssen said.
Although study enrollment ended when the Omicron variant began surging, Dr. Janssen noted that plasma from Omicron patients may also be of benefit to those with hematologic cancers.
“We have treated some patients in individual cases using plasma from Omicron patients who were already vaccinated or with breakthrough infections, and we did see benefits in those cases,” she noted.
The study was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany. Dr. Janssen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
The study demonstrated that “plasma from convalescent or vaccinated individuals shortens the time to improvement in hematological and solid cancer patients with severe COVID-19” and “prolongs overall survival,” said study coauthor Maike Janssen, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University Hospital.
Dr. Janssen presented the study findings at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association held in Vienna.
Although people with COVID-19 do not appear to benefit from treatment with convalescent plasma, some data indicate that certain patients who cannot mount a strong immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection may benefit.
In this recent multicenter study, 134 patients with confirmed COVID-19 whose oxygen saturation was 94% or lower were randomly assigned to undergo treatment with convalescent or vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma (n = 68) or to receive standard of care (n = 66). Patients fell into four clinical groups: those with a hematologic malignancy or who had undergone active cancer therapy for any cancer within the past 24 months; those with chronic immunosuppression; those between the ages of 50 and 75 with lymphopenia and/or elevated D-dimer levels; and those older than 75 years.
The convalescent or vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma was administered in two bags (238-337 mL plasma each) from different donors on days 1 and 2. Only plasma from donors with high levels of neutralizing activity (titers above 1:80) were included. The primary endpoint was time to improvement by 2 points on a 7-point scale or discharge from the hospital. The secondary endpoint was improvement in overall survival.
The authors found that overall, patients in the plasma group demonstrated a shorter time to improvement – median of 12.5 days, vs. 18 days – but the difference was not significant (P = .29).
However, for the subgroup of 56 patients with hematologic/solid cancers, the time to improvement was significantly shorter: 13 days vs. 31 days (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; P = .003).
Similarly, plasma therapy did not improve overall survival in the study population overall – there were 12 deaths in the plasma group over 80 days, vs. 15 in the control group (P = .80). Patients in the hematologic/solid cancer subgroup who received plasma therapy did demonstrate significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.28; P = .042).
No similar significant differences in time to improvement or overall survival were observed in the other three groups. “We found that plasma did not improve outcomes in immune-competent patients with other risk factors and/or older age,” Dr. Janssen said.
Although study enrollment ended when the Omicron variant began surging, Dr. Janssen noted that plasma from Omicron patients may also be of benefit to those with hematologic cancers.
“We have treated some patients in individual cases using plasma from Omicron patients who were already vaccinated or with breakthrough infections, and we did see benefits in those cases,” she noted.
The study was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany. Dr. Janssen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EHA 2022