Skip to main content
Download PDF

Incidence and treatment-related risk factors of inhibitor development after intensive FVIII replacement for major orthopaedic surgery in previous treated haemophilia A

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 19, Article number: 358 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Haemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked recessive bleeding disorder caused by lack or deficiency of coagulation factor VIII.

Aim

The aim of this study is to determine the incidence and treatment-related risk factors of inhibitor development after intensive FVIII replacement for major orthopaedic surgery in previous treated persons with HA.

Methods

A total of 151 HA who underwent 221 major orthopaedic surgical procedures after intensive FVIII treatment were reviewed. The results of inhibitor tests were collected. Potential clinical risk factors for inhibitor development were analyzed.

Results

111 people were diagnosed with severe HA. Thirty-seven persons (24.5%) had history of previous intensive FVIII treatment for surgical procedure. They received a mean perioperative cumulative FVIII of 498 iu/kg within first week after surgery. Seven cases (4.6%) developed an inhibitor post-operatively in our study. Surgical procedure for pseudotumor and the group of persons who experienced postoperative complications had the higher incidence of inhibitor development (9.5%, 13.3% respectively). Only previous history for intensive FVIII exposure was considered as a significant predictor for postoperative inhibitor development after multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR: 29.5, P = 0.002).

Conclusion

The incidence of inhibitor development in previously treated persons with HA undergoing major orthopaedic surgery was 4.6% and the history of previous intensive FVIII treatment for surgery was associated with higher risk of inhibitor development.

Introduction

Haemophilia A(HA) is an X-linked recessive bleeding disorder caused by lack or deficiency of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) which is encoded by F8 gene, and often results in excessive bleeding and leads to musculoskeletal complications [1]. Over 90% of bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia A(PWHA) occur within the musculoskeletal system, which adds to their disability, and severely affect their quality of life [2]. Surgical treatment is effective to preserve and restore the function for the PWHA with end-stage musculoskeletal disorders [3, 4]. In order to prevent bleeding, perioperative intensive coagulation factor replacement treatment to increase plasma levels of FVIII is inevitable, especially for major orthopaedic procedure leading to a peak treatment moment of FVIII and a higher dose compared with a spontaneous bleed [5].

The development of factor VIII inhibitor antibodies is the most important complication of the treatment of HA, as it renders the administered FVIII concentrates ineffective, leading to increased complications and mortality [6, 7]. In literature, intensive treatment with factor VIII concentration for surgical procedure in HA has been proposed to be associated with higher FVIII inhibitor development, which leads to increased postoperative surgery related and hematologic complications and mortality because of the ineffective FVIII administration [8]. According to a meta-analysis, the overall prevalence of inhibitors in unselected haemophiliac populations was found to be 5–7%, and the reported crude incidence varied from 0 to 33% [9]. It is important to know the incidence of inhibitor development in people with HA undergoing major orthopaedic surgery, because this risk has to be considered and well-informed when an elective surgical procedure is planned. The purpose of this retrospective study is to analysis the incidence of inhibitor development in a consecutive group of previous treated HA people (PTPs) receiving intensive FVIII replacement therapy for major orthopaedic surgical procedures.

Materials and methods

Patient selection

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The medical records of PWHA undergoing orthopaedic surgical treatment between January 2002 and December 2018 in our institute were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were defined as: (a) PTPs with more than 50 exposure days (EDs). (b) PWHA underwent major orthopaedic surgery. The major procedure in our study included total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), ankle arthrodesis (AA), surgery for haemophilia complicated with fracture, surgery for haemophilia complicated with pseudotumor. (c) PWHA accepted perioperative intensive replacement treatment of FVIII. The perioperative intensive treatment was defined as the cumulative use of at least 10,000 iu or 250 iu/kg for 5 or more consecutive days [10]. Patients with a known past history of a FVIII inhibitor or had any other haemostatic disorder were excluded from the analysis. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all the patients.

Surgical procedures

Multiple joints procedures (MJP) during one anesthetic episode are considered when the patients suffer from multiple joints involvement to reduce the event of intensive treatment with factor concentration [11]. All the THAs were performed from posterior-lateral approach with cementless implants. All the TKAs were performed under tourniquet and the synovium was completely removed to reduce the recurrent haemarthroses and pain. AA was performed by intramedullary nailing with autograft or allograft. The surgical technique for haemophilic pseudotumor was introduced in the previous literature [12].

Hematological care

A preliminary test of FVIII was conducted for all the cases before the operation for pharmacokinetic evaluation. The FVIII level and the factor inhibitor level were tested before the operation. Plasma derived FVIII or recombinant FVIII were used for HA. We referred to the guidelines of World Federation of Hemophilia to assign the strategy of clotting factor replacement therapy [5]. The patients were tested for inhibitors when the patients presented with ineffective treatment with FVIII, otherwise the patients were tested for inhibitors at the follow-up visit after surgery. Inhibitors were tested by the Nijmegen modification of the Bethesda assay [13]. One dose of tranexamic acid was used for HA at the start of operation. Pharmacologic anti-coagulation was not used for all the patients.

Data collection

The clinical data were collected before surgery and included: age, body weight, level of plasma FVIII coagulant activity before surgery, history of previous intensive treatments for bleeding or surgery and choice of regimen and FVIII product, co-morbidity. The intensive treatment was defined as the cumulative use of at least 10,000 iu or 250 iu/kg for 5 or more consecutive days. Data recorded perioperatively included: type of surgery, type of FVIII concentrate, mode of FVIII administration, cumulative amount of FVIII concentrate administered. The patients were regularly followed at postoperative 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months and annually thereafter. Any post-operative complications within postoperative 90 days exclusive of inhibitor development were recorded, considering that the complications were mainly related to the comorbidity of PWHA and perioperative management.

The primary outcome in this study was clinically relevant inhibitor development after surgery. A titre of 1–5 BU/ml was defined as a low inhibitor titre, and a titre of at least 5 BU/ml was defined as a high inhibitor titre [14]. The duration between the perioperative first exposure to factor and diagnosis of positive inhibitor was recorded.

Statistical analysis

The clinical data was analyzed using means and standard deviation (SD). For categorical variables, chi-square analysis was used to compare the difference. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. To determine the independent predictors associated with development of positive FVIII inhibitor, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Predictors factors for analysis included age ; presence of postoperative complication; level of baseline FVIII: C (< 1%, 1%~5%, > 5%); surgery information (total joint arthroplasty (TJA), AA, fracture, pseudotumor); choice of FVIII product; comorbidity of HIV or hepatitis infection; blood transfusion during surgery; operation strategy (single procedure or multiple procedures during one anesthesia. For regression analyses, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of odds ratios (ORs) were reported. Significant independent predictor variables were identified as those that maintained P values < 0.05 and an OR exclusive of 1.0. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 15.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 193 haemophilia patients underwent 270 major orthopaedic surgery during the period. 32 patients with less than previous 50 EDs and 10 patients with haemophilia B were excluded. A total of 151 PTPs HA people who underwent 221 surgical procedures for haemophilic musculoskeletal disorders in our institution were included in this study. The demographic information was presented in Table 1. According to the baseline FVIII: C level, 111 patients were severe haemophilia with the average FVIII level of 0.41%±0.17%. 28 patients were moderate with the average level 2.1%±1.2%. 12 patients were mild with the average level of 17.2%±9.4% (Table 1). Plasma derived FVIII was used for 142 patients, and recombinant FVIII was used for 9 patients. Twenty patients (13%) accepted prophylaxis treatment with FVIII before, the rest of the patients accepted on demand of FVIII treatment. Thirty-seven patients (24.5%) had previous history of intensive FVIII treatment for surgical procedure (Table 1). Gene sequencing revealed a single-base duplication mutation F8:c.3637dupA(p.Ile1213Asnfs*28) in case5 and a small indel mutation F8:c.3635_3636delinsT(p.K1212Ifs*6) in case7.

Table 1 Demographic information and baseline characteristics of the type A haemophila patients who underwent major orthopaedic surgical procedures in this study
Full size table

Surgical procedure

The surgery information was presented in Table 2. Sixty-two patients (41.1%) underwent multiple joints procedures (MJP) of total 132 surgical procedures during one anesthetic episode. Patients were exposed to FVIII concentrates for a median of 13.8 cumulative EDs (range 12 to 15) following surgery before stitch removal and received a mean perioperative cumulative FVIII of 498 iu/kg within first week after surgery and a mean cumulative FVIII of 157 iu/kg within the second week after surgery. In this group, except for inhibitor development, 27 patients (17.9%) totally experienced 29 postoperative complications within 90 days. The detail of the complication was presented in Table 2. The Hematologic complication included 9 cases of hemorrhage and 1 case of deep vein thrombosis.

Table 2 Surgical procedures information and complication within postoperative 90 days of the type A haemophila patients who underwent major orthopaedic surgical procedures
Full size table

Inhibitor development

Seven cases (4.6%) developed an inhibitor post-operatively in our study. The detail of the cases with FVIII inhibitor development was presented in Table 3. The duration between the perioperative first exposure to factor and diagnosis of positive inhibitor was from POD3 to 5 years. Six of the patients developed positive inhibitor within 30 days after operation (average 12 days, range 3 to 30). The other one case (case 5) were diagnosed of positive inhibitor at five years later (Table 3). He was diagnosed until the second admission for complication of pseudotumor and pathological fracture. Two cases (case 3 and case 7) had the transient inhibitor within six months. The average peak level of inhibitor in this study was 17.8 BU/ml (rang, 1.2 to 64 BU/ml). In total, 6 (85.7%) cases were diagnosed as severe haemophilia according to baseline FVIII level, 4 (57.1%) cases had a high titer inhibitor development after surgery, 6 (85.7%) cases had history of intensive FVIII exposure for previous surgery, 2 (28.6%) cases underwent surgery for haemophilia pseudotumor (Table 3). Five of the seven cases experienced postoperative complications except for inhibitor development within postoperative 90 days, with the rate of 71%, which was higher than the complication rate of 17.5% in the entire group.

Table 3 Detailed information of the Type A haemophila patients who developed FVIII inhibitor after major orthopaedic surgical procedures in this study
Full size table

Surgical procedure for pseudotumor had the higher incidence of inhibitor development compared with TJA (9.5% vs. 3.5%, χ2 = 1.53, P = 0.215). The group of patients experienced postoperative complications had the higher incidence of inhibitor development compared with the patients without postoperative complication (13.3% vs. 2.4%, χ2 = 6.55, P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference of the inhibitor development between MJP and single joint procedure (1.6% vs. 6.7%, χ2 = 2.174, P = 0.14), as well as between severe haemophilia and mild/moderate haemophilia (3.6% vs. 7.5%, χ2 = 1.01, P = 0.315). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was further used to identify risk factor for the complication of inhibitor development. Only previous history for intensive FVIII exposure was considered as a significant predictor for postoperative inhibitor development (OR: 29.5, P = 0.002)(Table 4).

Table 4 Result of multivariate logistic regression analysis for the possible risk factors of positive FVIII inhibitor after major orthopaedic surgical procedures in type A haemophiliac patients
Full size table

Discussion

Perioperative FVIII replacement regimens are targeted to prevent bleeding, and has resulted in a tendency to aim for higher FVIII levels, which leading to the use of higher doses of factor concentrates in surgical procedures [15]. The major orthopaedic surgical procedure consists of more invasive manipulation and postoperative rehabilitation. So more intensive factor treatment is required for the major orthopaedic surgical procedure [5]. There are numerous reports about the incidence of inhibitor development in haemophilia patients and a small ratio of the patient undergoing surgical procedure were included in these reports [8,9,10, 16, 17]. However, the most performed procedures were dental surgery and catheter implantation, limited study focused on the incidence of inhibitor in major orthopaedic procedure [18].

In literature, inhibitor development is associated with haemophilia patients’ genotype and might be triggered by environmental factors during their treatment, such as intensive treatment with clotting factor, inflammation and infection [19, 20]. Inflammation may provoke antibody formation in B lymphocytes by the concurrent presence of so called ‘danger signals’ of cytokine release arising from injured tissues [21, 22]. Probably, surgical procedure may make patients prone to inhibitor development by causing tissue damage and inflammation.

This is one of the first studies focusing on the incidence of inhibitor development after intensive FVIII treatment for major orthopaedic surgery in PWHA. Seven cases (4.6%) developed inhibitor post-operatively in our study. The incidence of inhibitor development after major orthopaedic surgery in this cohort of consecutive patients was lower than the results of inhibitor development after intensive treatment in literature [23,24,25]. Gouw et al. [23] reported the overall cumulative incidence of inhibitors was 32.0% in 576 children with severe HA accepting intensive FVIII treatment. Gouw et al. [24] reported another group of 366 severe previous untreated PWHA. Eighty-four patients accepted surgical procedures under replacement therapy at least three consecutive days. Eighty-seven (24%) patients developed inhibitor, and the patients who were first treated for surgical procedures had a markedly higher risk of inhibitor development (65%) than patients who were first treated for bleeding (23%). Eckhardt et al. [25] reported a retrospective cohort study of 138 moderate/mild haemophilia patients, found an inhibitor incidence of 17% after surgery (7/41). One of reason of the higher inhibitor incidence in those studies may be explained by the selection of high-risk patients for inclusion. Gouw et al. [23] reported the inhibitor incidence in children with average age of 9.8 months within their first 75 FVIII exposure days. Gouw et al. [24] and Eckhardt et al. [25] reported another groups of previously untreated patients. All these factors may increase the risk of inhibitor development [17, 18].

According to the report in literature, the higher number of EDs prior to surgery always led to less inhibitor development after factor treatment [9, 18, 24]. In the present study, we only included the patients with more than 50 EDs and all the patients were admitted for end-stage arthropathy and/or musculoskeletal disorders, which meant there was a long history of the disease before admission. Furthermore, the age of the patients ranged from 16 to 61 years old in this study, which was not peak period for inhibitor development throughout the life [17]. The rate of inhibitor development in this study was consistent with the result in some literatures [24, 26, 27]. We predicted the aforementioned points, as well as some others predisposing factor such as ethnicity, regimen of FVIII treatment, might be the reason of low incidence of inhibitor development in this study.

In this study, 4 (57.1%) cases had a high titer inhibitor development after surgery. The result was consistent with the results in literature [14, 17, 23]. Gouw et al. [23] reported the ratio of high titer inhibitor over all the inhibitor cases in severe PWHA accepting intensive FVIII treatment was 65% (118/179). Van et al. [14] reported 39 cases of 75 positive inhibitor patients had high titer inhibitor after intensive FVIII treatment and the median inhibitor peak titer was 7 BU/mL (IQR, 2–26). The interesting result of this study was that the mean peak titer of inhibitor was 22.6 BU/mL (1.2 to 64 BU/ml), which was higher than the results in literature. The high level of the inhibitor might be related to the characteristics of more invasive orthopaedic procedure [15], and would inevitably increase the further treatment burden [28, 29].

In this study, surgical procedure for pseudotumor had the higher incidence of inhibitor development than TJA. The patient experienced postoperative complication also had higher incidence of inhibitor development. We concluded the reason might be related to the more tissue damage and inflammation during the surgical procedure, as well as during the presence of postoperative complications [9, 11, 18].

There were several studies about the treatment-related risk factors of inhibitor development in patients with haemophilia in literature [8, 10, 14, 18, 24, 30, 31]. The brief review of the studies about intensive FVIII treatment and inhibitor development in HA was summarized in Table 5 [10, 14, 23,24,25, 32,33,34,35]. However, the included patients consisted of a wide crowd and unselected haemophiliac populations, including previous untreated patients [23,24,25], patients accepted prophylaxis treatment [17, 31], patients accepted intensive treatment for bleeding, patients accepted any surgery procedure [24], et al. Most of the studies concluded that high-dosed intensive FVIII treatment for surgery would increase the inhibitor risk (see Table 5). In this study, we concentrated on the haemophiliac patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery, and tried to identify, by multivariate logistic regression analysis, the risk factor for the complication of inhibitor development. After adjustment for all measured potential confounding factors, association between the observed factors and risk of inhibitor development that was present in the previous part largely disappeared (see Table 4) [36]. Only history of previous intensive FVIII exposure was considered as a statistically significant predictor for postoperative inhibitor development. The reason may be explained by the immunological ‘danger theory’ of P. Matzinger [21, 22]. Previous surgery under intensive FVIII treatment made the patients presence of ‘danger signals’, which confers an increased risk of inhibitor development after additional administration of FVIII. Our result was consistent with one of the latest studies in literature [14], which reported the ever previous surgery rendered non-severe haemophila A patients 4.2 fold risk of inhibitor development after intensive factor treatment.

Table 5 Summary of the literature studies on intensive FVIII treatment, surgical procedure and inhibitor development in HA
Full size table

We got the Sanger-sequencing result of case 5 (see Table 3) by himself and the report showed that he carries a single-base duplication mutation F8: c.3637dupA(p.Ile1213Asnfs*28). Then third-generation sequencing were performed to detect the pathogenic mutation in case 7 (see Table 3) by Berry Genomics Corporation (Beijing, China) and found a small indel mutation c.3635_3636delinsT(p.K1212Ifs*6) in F8 gene. Interestingly, these two mutations were very closely located in poly A regions of F8 B domain and all has been reported in inhibitor negative severe HA cases before [37]. Meanwhile, it was reported that patients with large deletions, nonsense mutations and intron 22 inversions had a 7–10 fold higher risk of developing inhibitors than patients with small indels and point mutations and the risk of developing inhibitors was higher in patients with mutations in the A3 and C2 domains compared to mutations in the B domains [38, 39]. This may suggest that PWHA have small indels in polyA regions of F8 B domain have a low risk of inhibitor developments, but would be provoked to inhibitor positive after intensive FVIII treatment for major orthopaedic surgical procedures.

While the major strength of our study is the focus on the inhibitor development after intensive FVIII treatment for major orthopaedic surgical procedure, the present study still has several limitations. First, this study was a retrospective study, which risks low data homogeneity and integrity compared with prospective study. For example, all the FVIII was administered by intermittent bolus injections in this study, so we could not analysis the effect of continuous infusion to the inhibitor development. Secondly, because of the limited case number, this study might be underpowered to detect the potential difference of inhibitor development between severe haemophilia and mild/moderate haemophilia. Multicenter studies with more case number are needed in future. Thirdly, the etiology of inhibitor production might be genetic. We did not detect all patients’ F8 mutations in this study, which implied we might miss some genetic risk factor of inhibitor development. Fourthly, undetected low-titer inhibitors were found in up to 8% of patients according to literature [40]. According to this study, we advocated multiple procedures under one anesthetic episode for haemophilia patients in order to avoid multiple admissions to decrease the risk of inhibitor development [11].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the average inhibitor incidence of intensive FVIII treatment for major orthopaedic surgical procedure was 4.6% in this study. Our findings suggest the history of previous intensive FVIII treatment for surgery was significant risk factor for inhibitor development in PWHA accepting intensive FVIII treatment for major orthopaedic surgical procedure. The surgical procedure for haemophilic pseudotumor, the patient experienced postoperative complication can also increase the incidence of inhibitor development. The surgeon should be aware of inhibitor risk in these patients and be well-informed when an elective surgical procedure is planned.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Berntorp E, Fischer K, Hart DP, Mancuso ME, Stephensen D, Shapiro AD, Blanchette V, Haemophilia. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Peyvandi F, Garagiola I, Young G. The past and future of haemophilia: diagnosis, treatments, and its complications. Lancet. 2016;388(10040):187–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Aspects of current management: orthopaedic surgery in haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2012;18(1):8–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Silva M, Luck JV Jr. Long-term results of primary total knee replacement in patients with hemophilia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:85–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Srivastava A, Brewer AK, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, et al. Guideline on management of haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2013;19(1):e1–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Leissinger C, Cooper DL, Solem CT. Assessing the impact of age, race, ethnicity and inhibitor status on functional limitations of patients with severe and moderately severe haemophilia A. Haemophilia. 2011;17:884–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Darby SC, Kan SW, Spooner RJ, Giangrande PLF, Hill FGH, Hay CRM, Lee CA, Ludlam CA, Williams M. Mortality rates, life expectancy, and causes of death in people with hemophilia A or B in the United Kingdom who were not infected with HIV. Blood. 2007;110:815–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kempton CL, Soucie JM, Miller CH, Hooper C, Escobar MA, Cohen AJ, Key NS, Thompson AR, Abshire TC. In non-severe hemophilia A the risk of inhibitor after intensive factor treatment is greater in older patients: a case–control study. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:2224–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wight J, Paisley S. The epidemiology of inhibitors in haemophilia A: a systematic review. Haemophilia. 2003;9:418–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eckhardt CL, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, Peters M, Leebeek Frank WG, et al. Inhibitor incidence after intensive FVIII replacement for surgery in mild and moderate haemophilia A: a prospective national study in the Netherlands. Br J Haematol. 2012;157:747–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feng B, Xiao K, Gao P, Liu Y, Zhang B, Ren Y, Weng X. Comparison of 90-day complication rates and cost between single and multiple joint procedures for end-stage arthropathy in patients with hemophilia. JBJS Open Access. 2018;20(4):e0026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhai J, Weng X, Zhang B, Liu Y, Gao P, Bian YY. Surgical treatment for hemophilic pseudotumor: twenty-three cases with an average follow-up of 5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(11):947–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Verbruggen B, Novakova I, Wessels H, Boez- eman J, van den Berg M, Mauser-Bunschoten E. The Nijmegen modification of the Bethesda assay for factor VIII:C inhibitors: improved specificity and reliability. Thromb Haemost. 1995;73:247–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van Velzen AS, Eckhardt CL, Peters M, Leebeek FWG, Escuriola-Ettingshausen C, Hermans C, et al. Intensity of factor VIII treatment and the development of inhibitors in non-severe hemophilia a patients: results of the INSIGHT case-control study. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(7):1422–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hermans C, Altisent C, Batorova A, Chambost H, De Moerloose P, Karafoulidou A, Klamroth R, Richards M, White B, Dolan G. Replacement therapy for invasive procedures in patients with haemophilia: literature review, European survey and recommendations. Haemophilia. 2009;15:639–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eckhardt CL, Van Velzen AS, Peters M, Astermark J, Brons PP, Castaman G, et al. Factor VIII gene (F8) mutation and risk of inhibitor development in nonsevere hemophilia a. Blood. 2013;122:1954–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hay CR, Palmer B, Chalmers E, Liesner R, Maclean R, Rangarajan S, et al. Incidence of factor VIII inhibitors throughout life in severe hemophilia A in the United Kingdom. Blood. 2011;117:6367–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eckhardt CL, van der Bom JG, van der Naald M, Peters M, Kamphuisen PW, Fijnvandraat K. Surgery and inhibitor development in hemophilia A: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(10):1948–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dasgupta S, Navarrete AM, Delignat S, Wootla B, Andre S, Nagaraja V, Lacroix-Desmazes S, Kaveri SV. Immune response against therapeutic factor VIII in hemophilia A patients – a survey of probable risk factors. Immunol Lett. 2007;110:23–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gouw SC, van den Berg HM. The multifactorial etiology of inhibitor development in hemophilia: genetics and environment. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2009;35:723–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matzinger P. The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science. 2002;296:301–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schep SJ, Boes M, Schutgens REG, van Vulpen LFD. An update on the ‘danger theory’ in inhibitor development in hemophilia A. Expert Rev Hematol. 2019;12(5):335–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gouw SC, van den Berg HM, Fischer K, Auerswald G, Carcao M, Chalmers E, et al. Intensity of factor VIII treatment and inhibitor development in children with severe hemophilia A: the RODIN study. Blood. 2013;121:4046–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gouw SC, van der Bom JG, van den Berg MH. Treatment-related risk factors of inhibitor development in previously untreated patients with hemophilia A: the CANAL cohort study. Blood. 2007;109:4648–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eckhardt CL, Menke LA, van Ommen CH, van der Lee JH, Geskus RB, Kamphuisen PW, Peters M, Fijnvandraat K. Intensive perioperative use of factor VIII and the Arg593->Cys mutation are risk factors for inhibitor development in mild/moderate hemophilia A. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7:930–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Auserwald G, Bade A, Haubold K, Overberg D, Masurat S, Moorthi C. No inhibitor development after continuous infusion of factor concentrates in subjects with bleeding disorders undergoing surgery. A prospective study. Haemophilia. 2013;19:438–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Iorio A, Barbara AM, Makris M, Fischer K, Castaman G, Catarino C, et al. Natural history and clinical characteristics of inhibitors in previously treated haemophilia A patients: a case series. Haemophilia. 2017;23(2):255–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gringeri A, Mantovani LG, Scalone L, et al. Cost of care and quality of life for patients with hemophilia complicated by inhibitors: the COCIS study group. Blood. 2009;102:2358–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Caviglia H, Narayan P, Forsyth A, Giangrande P, Gilbert M, Goddard N, et al. Musculoskeletal problems in persons with inhibitors: how do we treat? Haemophilia. 2012;18(Suppl 4):54–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sharathkumar A, Lillicrap D, Blanchette VS, et al. Intensive exposure to factor VIII is a risk factor for inhibitor development in mild hemophilia A. J Thromb Haemost. 2003;1:1228–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Klukowska A, Komrska V, Jansen M, Laguna P. Low incidence of factor VIII inhibitors in previously untreated patients during prophylaxis, on-demand treatment and surgical procedures, with Octanate®: interim report from an ongoing prospective clinical study. Haemophilia. 2011;17(3):399–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gouw SC, van den Berg HM, le Cessie S, van der Bom JG. Treatment characteristics and the risk of inhibitor development: a multicenter cohort study among previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5:1383–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Osooli M, Steen Carlsson K, Astermark J, Berntorp E. Surgery and survival in birth cohorts with severe haemophilia and differences in access to replacement therapy: the Malmö experience. Haemophilia. 2017;23(5):e403–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tong KM, Wang JD, Chang ST, Cheng YY, Wang SS. Outcome of perioperative hemostatic management in patients with hemophilia without inhibitors undergoing 161 invasive or surgical procedures. J Chin Med Assoc. 2018;81(10):926–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim JY, You CW. The prevalence and risk factors of inhibitor development of FVIII in previously treated patients with hemophilia A. Blood Res. 2019;54(3):204–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Pinto P, Ghosh K, Shetty S. F8 gene mutation profile in Indian HA patients: identification of 23 novel mutations and factor VIII inhibitor risk association. Mutat Res. 2016;786:27–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schwaab R, Brackmann HH, Meyer C, Seehafer J, Kirchgesser M, Haack A, Olek K, Tuddenham EG, Oldenburg J. HA: mutation type determines risk of inhibitor formation. Thromb Haemost. 1995;74(6):1402–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gouw SC, Van Der Bom JG, Van Den Berg HM, Zewald RA, Ploos Van Amstel JK, Mauser-Bunschoten EP. Influence of the type of F8 gene mutation on inhibitor development in a single centre cohort of severe HA patients. Haemophilia. 2011;17(2):275–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee ML, Roth DA. A Bayesian approach to the assessment of inhibitor risk in studies of factor VIII concentrates. Haemophilia. 2005;11(1):5–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Ke Xiao for the data collection in the study.

Funding

Bin Feng was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81871740). The other authors declare no competing financial interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China

    Han Wang, Wei Zhu, Bin Feng & Xisheng Weng

  2. Department of Hematology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China

    Shujie Wang

Authors
  1. Han Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shujie Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bin Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xisheng Weng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BF and HW performed research, collected, analysed and interpreted data and drafted and wrote the manuscript; XW, BF, WZ and SW performed the surgery and supervized data collection and critically reviewed the paper. All authors listed meet the authorship criteria according to the latest guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bin Feng or Xisheng Weng.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, H., Zhu, W., Wang, S. et al. Incidence and treatment-related risk factors of inhibitor development after intensive FVIII replacement for major orthopaedic surgery in previous treated haemophilia A. J Orthop Surg Res 19, 358 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04843-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04843-4

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X