Department of Hematology and Transfusion Medicine, National Hemophilia Center, Faculty of Medicine of Comenius University and University Hospital, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Haemophilia Centre, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
J Med Life. 2022 Apr;15(4):570-578. doi: 10.25122/jml-2022-0103.
The next frontier in hemophilia A management has arrived. However, questions remain regarding the broader applicability of new and emerging hemophilia A therapies, such as the long-term safety and efficacy of non-factor therapies and optimal regimens for individual patients. With an ever-evolving clinical landscape, it is imperative for physicians to understand how available and future hemophilia A therapies could potentially be integrated into real-life clinical practice to improve patient outcomes. Against this background, nine hemophilia experts from Central European countries participated in a pre-advisory board meeting survey. The survey comprised 11 multiple-choice questions about current treatment practices and future factor and non-factor replacement therapies. The survey questions were developed to reflect current unmet needs in hemophilia management reflected in the literature. The experts also took part in a follow-up advisory board meeting to discuss the most important unmet needs for hemophilia management as well as the pre-meeting survey results. All experts highlighted the challenge of maintaining optimal trough levels with prophylaxis as their most pressing concern. Targeting trough levels of ≥30-50 IU/L or even higher to achieve less bleeding was highlighted as their preferred strategy. However, the experts had an equal opinion on how this could be achieved (, more efficacious non-factor therapies or factor therapy offering broader personalization possibilities such as targeting trough levels to individual pharmacokinetic data). In summary, our study favors personalized prophylaxis to individual pharmacokinetic data rather than a "one-size-fits-all" approach to hemophilia A management to maintain optimal trough levels for individual patients.
血友病 A 管理的下一个前沿已经到来。然而,关于新型和新兴的血友病 A 治疗方法的更广泛适用性仍存在疑问,例如非因子治疗方法的长期安全性和疗效,以及针对个体患者的最佳治疗方案。随着临床领域的不断发展,医生必须了解现有的和未来的血友病 A 治疗方法如何可能被整合到实际的临床实践中,以改善患者的治疗效果。在此背景下,来自中欧国家的九位血友病专家参加了一次预先咨询委员会会议调查。该调查包括 11 个关于当前治疗实践和未来因子和非因子替代治疗的多项选择题。调查问题的制定旨在反映文献中反映的血友病管理方面的当前未满足需求。专家们还参加了后续的咨询委员会会议,讨论血友病管理方面最重要的未满足需求以及会前调查结果。所有专家都强调了维持预防治疗中最佳谷浓度的挑战,这是他们最关注的问题。将谷浓度目标设定在≥30-50IU/L 甚至更高,以实现更少出血,被认为是他们首选的策略。然而,专家们对如何实现这一目标(使用更有效的非因子治疗方法或提供更广泛的个体化可能性的因子治疗方法,如根据个体药代动力学数据设定谷浓度)有相同的看法。总之,我们的研究倾向于根据个体药代动力学数据进行个体化预防治疗,而不是采用“一刀切”的方法来管理血友病 A,以维持个体患者的最佳谷浓度。