A delphi consensus approach for difficult-to-treat patients with severe hemophilia a without inhibitors

Introduction: Over the past decade, there has been an increase in novel therapeutic options to treat hemophilia A. It is still unclear how these novel treatments are used in the management of patients with hemophilia A, particularly those with challenging clinical scenarios who are typically excluded in clinical trials. Purpose: This study aimed to understand the areas of consensus and disagreement among hematologists regarding the preferences toward therapeutic approaches for difficult-to-treat patients with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors. Patients and Methods: During February–June 2020, a three-round modified Delphi study was conducted to generate consensus among 13 US experts in the field of hemophilia. Experts were asked about their preferences toward therapeutic options for patients with challenging clinical situations, including age-related morbidities (eg, myocardial infarction, joint arthropathy), increasing demand for high-impact physical activities, early onset osteo-porosis, and newborns with hemophilia A. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement between the panelists. Results: Consensus was reached on many, but not all cases, leaving uncertainty about appropriateness of therapeutic approaches for some patients where clinical evidence is not available or driven by physicians’ or patients’ preferences toward therapeutic options. A majority of panelists preferred FVIII replacement therapy rather than emicizumab prophylaxis for the challenging cases presented due to established evidence on safety, efficacy, and level of bleed protection for FVIII treatment. Conclusion: Recommendations emerging from this study may help guide practicing hematologists in the management of challenging hemophilia A cases. Future studies are needed to address treatment options in the clinical cases where no consensus was reached.