BackgroundType 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most severe form of this disease owing to the almost complete deficiency of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Replacement therapy with plasma-derived... Show moreBackgroundType 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most severe form of this disease owing to the almost complete deficiency of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Replacement therapy with plasma-derived products containing VWF or recombinant VWF rarely cause the development of alloantibodies against VWF that may be accompanied by anaphylactic reactions.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of anti-VWF alloantibodies in subjects with type 3 VWD enrolled in the 3WINTERS-IPS.MethodsAn indirect in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay has been used to test all the alloantibodies against VWF. Neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) have been tested with a Bethesda-based method by using a VWF collagen binding (VWF:CB) assay. Samples positive for anti-VWF antibodies were further tested with Bethesda-based methods by using the semiautomated gain-of-function glycoprotein-Ib binding (VWF:GPIbM) and a VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsIn total, 18 of the 213 (8.4%) subjects tested positive for anti-VWF antibodies and 13 of 213 (6%) had VWF:CB inhibitors. These 13 were among the 18 with anti-VWF antibodies. Of the 5 without VWF:CB inhibitors, 3 had non-neutralizing antibodies, 1 only inhibitor against VWF:GPIbM, and one could not be tested further. Ten of the 13 subjects with VWF:CB inhibitors also had VWF:GPIbM inhibitors, 6 of whom also had VWF:Ag inhibitors. Subjects with inhibitors were homozygous for VWF null alleles (11/14), homozygous for a missense variant (1/14), or partially characterized (2/14).ConclusionsAnti-VWF antibodies were found in 8.4% of subjects with type 3 VWD, whereas neutralizing VWF inhibitors were found in 6%, mainly in subjects homozygous for VWF null alleles. Because inhibitors may be directed toward different VWF epitopes, their detection is dependent on the assay used. Show less
Pagliari, M.T.; Rosendaal, F.R.; Ahmadinejad, M.; Badiee, Z.; Baghaipour, M.R.; Baronciani, L.; ... ; Eikenboom, J. 2022
Background Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a severe bleeding disorder caused by the virtually complete absence of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Pathophysiological mechanisms of VWD like... Show moreBackground Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a severe bleeding disorder caused by the virtually complete absence of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Pathophysiological mechanisms of VWD like defective synthesis, secretion, and clearance of VWF have previously been evaluated using ratios of VWF propeptide (VWFpp) over VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and factor (F)VIII coagulant activity (FVIII:C) over VWF:Ag. Objective To investigate whether the VWFpp/VWF:Ag and FVIII:C/VWF:Ag ratios may also be applied to understand the pathophysiological mechanism underlying type 3 VWD and whether VWFpp is associated with bleeding severity. Methods European and Iranian type 3 patients were enrolled in the 3WINTERS-IPS study. Plasma samples and buffy coats were collected and a bleeding assessment tool was administered at enrolment. VWF:Ag, VWFpp, FVIII:C, and genetic analyses were performed centrally, to confirm patients' diagnoses. VWFpp/VWF:Ag and FVIII:C/VWF:Ag ratios were compared among different variant classes using the Mann-Whitney test. Median differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method. VWFpp association with bleeding symptoms was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. Results Homozygosity/compound heterozygosity for missense variants showed higher VWFpp level and VWFpp/VWF:Ag ratio than homozygosity/compound heterozygosity for null variants ([VWFpp median difference, 1.4 IU/dl; 95% CI, 0.2-2.7; P = .016]; [VWFpp/VWF:Ag median difference, 1.4; 95% CI, 0-4.2; P = .054]). FVIII:C/VWF:Ag ratio was similarly increased in both. VWFpp level did not correlate with the bleeding symptoms (r = .024; P = .778). Conclusions An increased VWFpp/VWF:Ag ratio is indicative of missense variants, whereas FVIII:C/VWF:Ag ratio does not discriminate missense from null alleles. The VWFpp level was not associated with the severity of bleeding phenotype. Show less
Abdi, A.; Eckhardt, C.L.; Velzen, A.S. van; Vuong, C.; Coppens, M.; Castaman, G.; ... ; INSIGHT Study Grp 2021
Background Non-severe hemophilia A patients have a life-long inhibitor risk. Yet, no studies have analyzed risk factors for inhibitor development after 50 factor VIII (FVIII) exposure days (EDs).... Show moreBackground Non-severe hemophilia A patients have a life-long inhibitor risk. Yet, no studies have analyzed risk factors for inhibitor development after 50 factor VIII (FVIII) exposure days (EDs). Objectives This case-control study investigated treatment-related risk factors for inhibitor development in non-severe hemophilia A and assessed whether these risk factors were different for early versus late inhibitor development. Patients/Methods Non-severe hemophilia A patients (FVIII:C 2%-40%) were selected from the INSIGHT study. Inhibitor-positive patients were defined as early (<50 EDs) or late (>50EDs) cases and matched to 1-4 inhibitor-negative controls by year of birth, cumulative number of EDs, and center/country. We investigated treatment intensity during the last 10 EDs prior to inhibitor development. Intensive treatment was defined as: surgery, peak treatment (10 consecutive EDs), and high mean FVIII dose (>45 IU/kg/ED). Odds ratios (OR) were calculated by logistic regression. Results Of 2709 patients, we analyzed 63 early and 26 late cases and 195 and 71 respectively matched controls. Peak treatment was associated with early and late inhibitor risk (crude OR 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-3.4; 4.0, 95%CI 1.1-14.3). This association was slightly less pronounced after adjustment for mean FVIII dose. High mean FVIII dose was also associated with early and late inhibitor risk (crude OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.5-5.1; 4.5, 95%CI 1.2-16.6). Surgery increased inhibitor risk for early cases. This was less pronounced for late cases. Conclusions Our findings suggest that intensive FVIII treatment remains a risk factor for inhibitor development in non-severe hemophilia A after more than 50 EDs. Therefore, persistent caution is required throughout the life-time treatment course. Show less
Background Type 3 von Willebrand's disease (VWD) patients present markedly reduced levels of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII. Because of its rarity, the bleeding phenotype of type 3 VWD is... Show moreBackground Type 3 von Willebrand's disease (VWD) patients present markedly reduced levels of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII. Because of its rarity, the bleeding phenotype of type 3 VWD is poorly described, as compared to type 1 VWD. Aims To evaluate the frequency and the severity of bleeding symptoms across age and sex groups in type 3 patients and to compare these with those observed in type 1 VWD patients to investigate any possible clustering of bleeding symptoms within type 3 patients. Methods We compared the bleeding phenotype and computed the bleeding score (BS) using the MCMDM-1VWD bleeding questionnaire in patients enrolled in the 3WINTERS-IPS and MCMDM-1VWD studies. Results In 223 unrelated type 3 VWD patients, both the BS and the number of clinically relevant bleeding symptoms were increased in type 3 as compared to type 1 VWD patients (15 versus 6 and 5 versus 3). Intracranial bleeding, oral cavity, hemarthroses, and deep hematomas were at least five-fold over-represented in type 3 VWD. A more severe bleeding phenotype was evident in patients having von Willebrand factor antigen levels < 20 IU/dL at diagnosis in the two merged cohorts. In type 3 patients, there was an apparent clustering of hemarthrosis with gastrointestinal bleeding and epistaxis, whereas bleeding after surgery or tooth extraction clusters with oral bleeding and menorrhagia. Conclusions In the largest cohort of type 3 VWD patients, we were able to describe a distinct clinical phenotype that is associated with the presence of a more severe hemostatic defect. Show less
Velzen, A.S. van; Eckhardt, C.L.; Peters, M.; Oldenburg, J.; Cnossen, M.; Liesner, R.; ... ; INSIGHT Consortium 2020
Inhibitor development is a major complication of treatment with factor VIII concentrates in nonsevere haemophilia A. It has been suggested that plasma-derived factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates... Show moreInhibitor development is a major complication of treatment with factor VIII concentrates in nonsevere haemophilia A. It has been suggested that plasma-derived factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates elicit fewer inhibitors than recombinant FVIII concentrates, but studies in severe haemophilia A patients have shown conflicting results. We designed a case-control study to investigate the clinical and genetic risk factors for inhibitor development in nonsevere haemophilia A patients. We investigated whether the type of FVIII concentrate was associated with inhibitor development in nonsevere haemophilia A patients. This nested case-control study includes 75 inhibitor patients and 223 controls, from a source population of the INSIGHT study, including all nonsevere haemophilia A patients (FVIII:C 2-40%) that were treated with FVIII concentrates in 33 European and one Australian centre. Cases and controls were matched for date of birth and cumulative number of exposure days (CED) to FVIII concentrate. A conditional logistic regression model was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios. No increased risk for inhibitor development was found for any type of FVIII concentrate; either when comparing recombinant FVIII concentrates to plasma-derived FVIII concentrates (adjusted odds ratio 0 center dot 96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0 center dot 36-2 center dot 52) or for specific types of FVIII concentrates. Show less
Witjes, J.A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Horwich, A. 2020
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder canceir management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistake-holder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available. (C) 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Horwich, A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Witjes, J.A. 2019
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach. Show less
Engert, A.; Balduini, C.; Brand, A.; Coiffier, B.; Cordonnier, C.; Dohner, H.; ... ; EHA Roadmap European Hematology Re 2016
