RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This study retrospectively compared annualized billed bleed rates (ABRb) in people with hemophilia A (PwHA) without inhibitors who switched from factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis to emicizumab. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A real-world comparison study was performed on the effect of switching from FVIII to emicizumab prophylaxis in male, non-inhibitor patients on ABRb using an all-payer claims database (APCD) dataset from 1 January 2014, to 31 March 2021. The identification period was from 1 November 2017, to 30 September 2020. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-one patients were included with a total of 82 and 45 bleeds in the pre- and post-switch periods, respectively. The average follow-up period pre-switch was 978.37 days (SD 555.03), whereas the average follow-up period post-switch was 522.26 days (SD 191.36). No significant differences in mean ABRb were observed pre-/post-switch (0.25 and 0.20, respectively; P = 0.4456). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate no significant reduction in ABRb, suggesting that switching from FVIII to emicizumab may not deliver incremental benefits to PwHA receiving prophylactic care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Majority of haemophilia A patients in our comprehensive care centre have switched from standard half-life (SHL) to extended half-life (EHL) FVIII products in a short time. AIM: We compared the clinical and laboratory outcomes between SHL and EHL FVIII prophylaxis in product switchers. METHODS: This is a retrospective inception cohort of all adult haemophilia A patients switched to EHL (rFVIIIFc or rFVIII-PEG) prophylaxis in our centre. Dosing, product utilization, annualized bleed rates (ABR), treatment regimen and pharmacokinetics by Web Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service (WAPPS)-Hemo were compared between SHL and EHL. RESULTS: We included 38 patients, whose median age was 38 years (range 17-75). Median FVIII dose was 23 IU/kg for SHL versus 25 IU/kg for EHL. After switching, weekly infusions decreased by 29% from median 2.8 (every 2.5 days) to 2.0 (every 3.5 days) (P = <.001) and factor consumption for prophylaxis by 17% from 60 to 50 IU/kg/week (P = <.001). Weekly infusions decreased in 71% and FVIII utilization in 55% of patients. ABR remained low (1.0 for SHL and .5 for EHL, respectively). In pharmacokinetics, the half-life of FVIII increased from median 13 to 21 h after switching. Times above .01 and .03 IU/ml improved from 85 to 131 h and from 65 to 106 h. Half-lives of the SHL products and von Willebrand factor levels predicted half-lives with the EHL products. CONCLUSIONS: Our cohort study confirms the successful experience of switching to EHL FVIII products, with decreased infusion frequency, factor consumption and excellent clinical efficacy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The next frontier in hemophilia A management has arrived. However, questions remain regarding the broader applicability of new and emerging hemophilia A therapies, such as the long-term safety and efficacy of non-factor therapies and optimal regimens for individual patients. With an ever-evolving clinical landscape, it is imperative for physicians to understand how available and future hemophilia A therapies could potentially be integrated into real-life clinical practice to improve patient outcomes. Against this background, nine hemophilia experts from Central European countries participated in a pre-advisory board meeting survey. The survey comprised 11 multiple-choice questions about current treatment practices and future factor and non-factor replacement therapies. The survey questions were developed to reflect current unmet needs in hemophilia management reflected in the literature. The experts also took part in a follow-up advisory board meeting to discuss the most important unmet needs for hemophilia management as well as the pre-meeting survey results. All experts highlighted the challenge of maintaining optimal trough levels with prophylaxis as their most pressing concern. Targeting trough levels of ≥30-50 IU/L or even higher to achieve less bleeding was highlighted as their preferred strategy. However, the experts had an equal opinion on how this could be achieved (i.e., more efficacious non-factor therapies or factor therapy offering broader personalization possibilities such as targeting trough levels to individual pharmacokinetic data). In summary, our study favors personalized prophylaxis to individual pharmacokinetic data rather than a "one-size-fits-all" approach to hemophilia A management to maintain optimal trough levels for individual patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS: Long-acting (LA) recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products with extended dosing intervals have been developed for the treatment of hemophilia A; however, no direct head-to-head trial has been conducted to compare the efficacy of these products. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify published Phase III clinical trials of prophylactic LA rFVIII treatment in previously treated patients aged ≥12 years, with moderate-to-severe hemophilia A (endogenous FVIII levels ≤2%). Studies that did not meet these criteria, or did not report the included outcomes, were excluded. Bleeding rates and consumption were extracted and summarized; only data for the dosing frequencies indicated in the US product labels (which are similar to those indicated in the European Medicines Agency labels) were included. RESULTS: Five articles met the inclusion criteria; these studies only included patients with severe hemophilia A. Treatment length, reported outcomes and dose (range: 20-65 IU/kg) varied between studies. Median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) (IQR) reported in the relevant studies was 1.14 (0.00-4.30), rVIII-SingleChain 2 or 3 times weekly; 1.6 (0.0-4.7), rFVIIIFc 2 times weekly followed by every 3-5 days; 1.9 (0.0-5.8), BAX855 2 times weekly; 1.18 (0.00-4.25), N8-GP every 4 days; 1.9 (0.0-5.2) and 4.1 (2.0-10.6), BAY 94-9027 2 times weekly for the cohort who experienced >1 or <1 bleed in the study run-in phase, respectively. Median spontaneous ABR was 0.0 across studies reporting relevant data. Reported consumption was comparable among all LA products. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation of this systematic review was the variation in study design and not all studies reported all desired outcomes, which limited the quantity of data available. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified pivotal trial data for LA rFVIII products. Real-world evidence is needed to understand how these products perform in clinical practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Aims: Prophylaxis with standard-acting recombinant factor IX (rFIX) in hemophilia B patients requires frequent injections. Extended half-life (EHL) products allow for prolonged dosing intervals, and so reduce this treatment burden. Three technologies are employed to extend the half-life of FIX; glycopegylation, Fc-fusion, and albumin fusion. rIX-FP is a novel albumin fusion protein, which allows for a prolonged dosing interval of up to 14 days. A systematic review and indirect statistical comparison was performed to evaluate the efficacy of both EHL and standard-acting rFIX products compared with rIX-FP in Phase III trials for prophylaxis in adult hemophilia B patients. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted in both EMBASE and PubMed to identify Phase III trials of prophylactic rFIX treatment in previously treated hemophilia B patients aged ≥12 years (FIX ≤2%). Annualized bleeding rate (ABR), spontaneous ABR (AsBR), and joint ABR (AjBR) data were extracted from each study. A z-test was performed using the mean of each parameter, and the mean difference in outcome between studies was calculated. Results: Seven articles investigating six rFIX products were identified. Median ABR, AsBR, and AjBR ranged from 0-3.0, 0-1.0, and 0-1.1 (means = 0.8-4.26, 0.13-2.6, and 0.34-2.85), respectively. rIX-FP achieved the lowest median and mean values in all three parameters. Z-tests showed that mean ABR was significantly lower for rIX-FP 7-day prophylaxis compared with the majority of standard-acting and other EHL rFIX products. Limitations: The low number of appropriate trials available for comparison limits the quantity of data available for comparison, and restricts the use of methods of adjustment for variance in study design or patient characteristics. However, these limitations are shared with similar analyses published in this field. Conclusion: This indirect comparison of Phase III trials indicates that rIX-FP efficacy compares favorably vs other rFIX products for prophylaxis in hemophilia B.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The THUNDER study provides an analysis of treatment patterns and outcomes in UK patients with severe or moderate haemophilia A (SHA/MHA) in 2015. METHODS: Patients with SHA or MHA registered with the UK National Haemophilia Database (NHD) were segregated by severity, inhibitor status and age. Haemophilia joint health score (HJHS) was derived from NHD records and treatment regimen and annualized bleed/joint-bleed rate (ABR/AJBR) from Haemtrack (HT) in HT-compliant patients. RESULTS: We report 1810 patients with SHA and 864 with MHA. Prophylaxis was used in 94.9% (n = 130/137) of HT-compliant children <12 years with SHA, falling to 74.1% (n = 123/166) aged ≥40 years. Median ABR increased with age (1.0, IQR 0.0-5.0, <12 years; 3.0 IQR, 1.0-8.0, ≥40 years). Inhibitors were present in 159 (8.8%) SHA and 34 (3.9%) MHA. Median ABR increased from 2.0 (<12 years) to 21.0 (≥40 years) in SHA inhibitor patients using prophylaxis. Prophylaxis was used by 68.8% of HT-compliant MHA patients (n = 106) (median FVIII baseline 0.01 IU/mL) associated with a median (IQR) ABR of 3.0 (1.0-7.0). Median HJHS (n = 453) increased with age in SHA and MHA. Median (IQR) HJHS was higher in SHA inhibitor (17.0, 0.0-64.5) than non- or past inhibitor patients (7.0, 0.0-23.0). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing ABR with age persists despite current prophylaxis regimens. SHA and MHA had similar ABR/AJBR and HJHS, leading to a suspicion that a subgroup of MHA may be relatively undertreated. More intensive prophylaxis may improve outcomes, but this requires further study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products with extended half-lives have the potential to improve adherence and outcomes in haemophilia beyond the results obtained with conventional rFVIII products. AIM: In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, annualized bleed rates (ABRs) and weekly factor consumption with rFVIII Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) and conventional rFVIII products were indirectly compared using studies of continuous prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies of rFVIII products for comparison with rFVIIIFc in the continuous prophylactic treatment of previously treated adolescents and adults with moderate and severe haemophilia A. Mean ABRs were compared between rFVIIIFc and individual rFVIII studies and between rFVIIIFc and a pooled measure for rFVIII estimated by meta-analysis. Comparisons of factor consumption were based on mean or median weekly factor consumption. RESULTS: Results from seven studies of conventional rFVIII products (injections 2-4 times week-1 ) were compared with rFVIIIFc (injections 1.4-2.4 times week-1 ). The pooled mean ABR for rFVIII products was significantly higher compared with rFVIIIFc (difference = 2.0; P = 0.007). Compared with most rFVIII studies, the reported weekly factor consumption was lower with rFVIIIFc [mean differences = 15.5-21.8 IU kg-1 week-1 (17-26%); median differences = 12.7-29.8 IU kg-1 week-1 (16-37%)]. In one comparison, mean weekly factor consumption with rFVIII was significantly lower but mean ABR was significantly higher than rFVIIIFc. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc may be associated with improved bleeding rates and lower weekly factor consumption than more frequently injected rFVIII products. Relative to rFVIII products with similar bleeding rates, results indicate that rFVIIIFc is associated with reduced weekly factor consumption while requiring fewer prescribed injections.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: No head-to-head trials comparing recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products currently exist. This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) study of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 with antihemophilic factor (recombinant) plasma/albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM) and turoctocog alfa for the prophylaxis of severe hemophilia A. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials of rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. Comparisons were conducted using BAY 81-8973 individual patient data (IPD) from LEOPOLD trials and published data from rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa trials. Differences in outcome reporting were reconciled using transformation of BAY 81-8973 IPD. Patients in pooled LEOPOLD trials were weighted to match baseline characteristics for rAHF-PFM or turoctocog alfa trials using MAICs. After matching, annualized bleed rates (ABRs) were compared using weighted t-tests. RESULTS: Two rAHF-PFM trials and one turoctocog alfa trial were identified. In these trials, rFVIIIs were dosed thrice weekly or every other day; in LEOPOLD trials, BAY 81-8973 was dosed twice- or thrice weekly. Three MAICs were conducted because the two rAHF-PFM trials calculated ABRs differently, matching for age, race, and weight (turoctocog alfa only). BAY 81-8973 had similar ABR of all bleeds vs rAHF-PFM (two trials: 4.8 vs 6.3, 1.9 vs 1.8 [square root transform]) and lower ABR of spontaneous bleeds and trauma bleeds (2.6 vs 4.1, 2.1 vs 4.7; both P<0.05). BAY 81-8973 showed lower ABR of all bleeds and spontaneous bleeds vs turoctocog alfa (4.3 vs 6.5, 2.8 vs 4.3; both P<0.05) and similar ABR of trauma bleeds (1.5 vs 1.6). In subgroup analysis, twice-weekly BAY 81-8973 had similar ABRs of all bleeds, spontaneous bleeds, and trauma bleeds compared to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. CONCLUSION: This indirect comparison found that prophylaxis with BAY 81-8973, even including the lower frequency of two times a week and lower factor VIII consumption, has efficacy comparable to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa, which were dosed thrice weekly or every other day. The use of IPD enabled adjustments for differences in calculation of ABRs and population characteristics between trials.