Revealing and IgG4 analysis to factor VIII in haemophilia-A patients with and without inhibitors
Introduction
According to data from the World Federation of haemophilia (WFH) 2016 Annual Global Survey Report, India has the highest number of haemophilia populations with 18,353, of which 15,218 had haemophilia A (HA), 2,379 had haemophilia B (HB), and 756 had an unexplained category [1].
The therapy includes replacement therapy with plasma-derived or recombinant Factor VIII (FVIII). The development of Antibodies against FVIII is a major health concern in patients with HA. These inhibitory antibodies bind to the infused FVIII, reducing its half-life and suppressing its coagulant ability. This leads to bleeding episodes becoming superior to standard treatment. In contrast, possible treatment methods such as inhibitor bypassing drugs (inhibitors) are required.
The cumulative incidence of inhibitor development is between 20%–30% in severe HA and between 5 %–10 % in moderate or mild disease [2]. The global population of patients with HA who are clinically diagnosed with inhibitors is approximately 4711 [1].
In patients with HA, the antibodies to exogenous FVIII are polyclonal immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, with the majority belonging to the IgG4 subtype. Further IgG1 and IgG2 subtypes are present, but they do not bind to complement. Anti-FVIII IgG4 antibodies correlate best with the presence of functional inhibitors [[3], [4], [5]].
Typically, inhibitors are quantified by their interference with clotting or chromogenic factor assays. Moreover, they can be detected using immunologic assays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or fluorescence immunoassays.
In clinical practice, functional antibody responses to FVIII are commonly used to identify FVIII inhibitors using the Classical Bethesda Assay (CBA) or the Nijmegen-modified Bethesda Assay (NBA). The CBA, which quantifies FVIII inhibitor plasma concentrations, is the accepted gold standard for detecting FVIII inhibitors in HA. However, this technique adequately detects low inhibitor titers, yields false-negative outcomes, and samples with large inhibitor titers require repeated assays following dilution. CBA and NBA are technically intensive assays that require highly skilled personnel and a large sample volume. They also consume a significant amount of chemicals, making them expensive. This is a significant impediment to inhibitor detection in developing countries.
Previous studies employing ELISA to detect FVIII inhibitors and their immunoglobulin subclass revealed an acceptable or higher sensitivity [6] and a strong correlation between CBA and ELISA [7].
The predominant IgG subclasses in patients treated with FVIII inhibitors are IgG4 and IgG1 [5,8]. IgG4 was absent in patients who did not receive FVIII inhibitors or healthy controls [8]. These findings are promising since they demonstrate a specific immune regulatory process for the development of FVIII-specific IgG4 and the synthesis of FVIII inhibitors. Measuring this subset of antibodies (ideally IgG4 and IgG1) in everyday clinical practice may be highly beneficial for discovering clinically significant antibodies. In comparison to NBA, ELISA enables quick screening that may be accessible before Bethesda confirmation.
The purpose of this study was to standardise and evaluate an in-house indirect IgG4 ELISA for screening and to diagnose FVIII inhibitors and to compare it to the Nijmegen-Bethesda assay in haemophilia-A patients.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The research group consists of a subset of 300 cases identified through camps held in various cities throughout North India in collaboration with the haemophilia Federation of India and through direct referral to our laboratory. All HA, with or without inhibitor, were severe haemophilia A patients with less than 1 % Factor VIII bioactivity. The study categories are listed in Table 1, along with their respective inclusion and exclusion criteria. This study was a case series comprising three
Results
Study group distribution with clinical characteristics and inhibitor titers are given in Table 2.
Discussion
Inhibitors of coagulation factors are mainly divided into neutralising and non-neutralising inhibitory antibodies. Inhibitors can either block the action of the factor or lead to their clearance from the circulation after combining it. This, in effect, leads to ‘neutralisation’ of clotting factor activity and is known as a functional inhibitor. Anti-FVIII or anti-FIX antibodies that do not interfere with clotting factor function may also be present; these have been called “non-neutralising” or
Conclusion
IgG4 ELISA for detecting neutralising or functional FVIII inhibitors may prove to be a valuable technique for detecting clinically significant inhibitors, especially in resource-poor setup, following which patients may be referred for quantification of inhibitors to referral laboratories. This approach may benefit the haemophilia treatment centres as they continue to struggle for inhibitor quantification.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Funding
Study group was part of a cohort of haemophilia A cases for inhibitor testing (Reference 9) funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India. Hence, the current study may be considered partially funded by DST.
Ethics
Institutional Ethics Committee, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, UP, India (Ref: IEC 33/16).
Contributorship statement
NPA: Data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation and revision.
KR- Sample collection, history & data collection of enrolled patients.
VT- Conceptualisation, Standardizing in-house ELISA, validation and diagnostic evaluation of in-house IgG4 ELISA, manuscript preparation and editing.
SA- Sample collection, data collection, data analysis.
NH-Conceptualization, data analysis, manuscript revision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to acknowledge Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India for providing SERB grant support (Ref. no SB/SO/HS/025/2014) as partial support for this research.
References (17)
- et al.
Comparison of clot-based, chromogenic and fluorescence assays for measurement of factor VIII inhibitors in the US haemophilia Inhibitor Research Study
J Thromb Haemost
(2013) - et al.
Quantitation of anti-factor VIII antibodies in human plasma
Blood
(2009) - et al.
Nonneutralizing antibodies against factor VIII and risk of inhibitor development in severe haemophilia A
Blood
(2017) - World Federation of haemophilia (WFH) Canada: [accessed on August 31, 2018]. Report on the Annual Global Survey 2016....
- et al.
Guidelines for the management of haemophilia
(2012) - et al.
Distinct characteristics of antibody responses against factor VIII in healthy individuals and in different cohorts of haemophilia A patients
Blood
(2012) - et al.
A longitudinal evaluation of anti-FVIII antibodies demonstrated IgG4 subclass is mainly correlated with high-titre inhibitor in haemophilia A patients
Haemophilia
(2015) - et al.
Comparative measurement of FVIII inhibitors in haemophilia a patients using ELISA and the Bethesda assay
(2010)
Cited by (1)
Functional determination of emicizumab in presence of factor VIII activity
2023, Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis