4.7 Article

Immunosuppression for acquired hemophilia A: results from the European Acquired Haemophilia Registry (EACH2)

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 120, Issue 1, Pages 47-55

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-02-409185

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Novo Nordisk Heath Care, Zurich, Switzerland
  2. Novo Nordisk Region Europe A/S, Zurich, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is an autoimmune disease caused by an autoantibody to factor VIII. Patients are at risk of severe and fatal hemorrhage until the inhibitor is eradicated, and guidelines recommend immunosuppression as soon as the diagnosis has been made. The optimal immunosuppressive regimen is unclear; therefore, data from 331 patients entered into the prospective EACH2 registry were analyzed. Steroids combined with cyclophosphamide resulted in more stable complete remission (70%), defined as inhibitor undetectable, factor VIII more than 70 IU/dL and immunosuppression stopped, than steroids alone (48%) or rituximab-based regimens (59%). Propensity score-matched analysis controlling for age, sex, factor VIII level, inhibitor titer, and underlying etiology confirmed that stable remission was more likely with steroids and cyclophosphamide than steroids alone (odds ratio = 3.25; 95% CI, 1.51-6.96; P < .003). The median time to complete remission was approximately 5 weeks for steroids with or without cyclo-phosphamide; rituximab-based regimens required approximately twice as long. Immunoglobulin administration did not improve outcome. Second-line therapy was successful in approximately 60% of cases that failed first- line therapy. Outcome was not affected by the choice of first-line therapy. The likelihood of achieving stable remission was not affected by underlying etiology but was influenced by the presenting inhibitor titer and FVIII level. (Blood. 2012;120(1):47-55)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available