Robert Klamroth1, Piotr Wojciechowski2, Samuel Aballéa3, Françoise Diamand4, Zalmai Hakimi5, Jameel Nazir5, Lydia Abad-Franch6, Stefan Lethagen7, Elena Santagostino8, Michael D Tarantino9. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Hemophilia Treatment Centre, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany. 2. Creativ-Ceutical, Krakow, Poland. 3. Creativ-Ceutical, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Creativ-Ceutical, Paris, France. 5. Health Economics and Outcomes Research (Global), Sobi, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Global Medical Affairs Hematology, Sobi, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. Medical and Clinical Sciences, Sobi, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. Medical Affairs Hematology, Sobi, Stockholm, Sweden. 9. The Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute, University of Illinois College of Medicine-Peoria, Peoria, IL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Primary prophylaxis, using factor VIII replacement, is the recognized standard of care for severe hemophilia A. Recombinant factor VIII-Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab, a humanized, bispecific antibody, are approved for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in severe hemophilia A. These products have different mechanisms of action, methods of administration and treatment schedules. In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons can provide informative evidence on the relative efficacy of the two treatments. The aim of the study was to compare the approved dosing regimens for each product, rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis and emicizumab administered once every week (Q1W), every 2 weeks (Q2W) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), based on clinical trial evidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The comparison was conducted using matching-adjusted indirect comparison since clinical evidence did not form a connected network. Individual patient data for rFVIIIFc (A-LONG) were compared with data for emicizumab (HAVEN trial program) for mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and proportion of patients with zero bleeds. Safety data reported across the analyzed treatment arms were tabularized but not formally compared. RESULTS: After matching, no significant differences were observed between mean ABR for rFVIIIFc and emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W. The proportion of patients with zero bleeds was significantly higher with rFVIIIFc compared with emicizumab administered Q4W (51.2% versus 29.3%, respectively; odds ratio 2.53; 95% confidence interval 1.09-5.89); no significant differences noted when rFVIIIFc was compared with emicizumab administered Q1W or Q2W. The mean number of adverse events expressed per participant was 1.9 for individualized prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and 3.7-4.0, 4.1 and 3.6 for emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W, respectively. CONCLUSION: This indirect treatment comparison suggests that rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis is more efficacious than emicizumab Q4W, and at least as effective as more frequent emicizumab regimens, for the management of hemophilia A.
PURPOSE: Primary prophylaxis, using factor VIII replacement, is the recognized standard of care for severe hemophilia A. Recombinant factor VIII-Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab, a humanized, bispecific antibody, are approved for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in severe hemophilia A. These products have different mechanisms of action, methods of administration and treatment schedules. In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons can provide informative evidence on the relative efficacy of the two treatments. The aim of the study was to compare the approved dosing regimens for each product, rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis and emicizumab administered once every week (Q1W), every 2 weeks (Q2W) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), based on clinical trial evidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The comparison was conducted using matching-adjusted indirect comparison since clinical evidence did not form a connected network. Individual patient data for rFVIIIFc (A-LONG) were compared with data for emicizumab (HAVEN trial program) for mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and proportion of patients with zero bleeds. Safety data reported across the analyzed treatment arms were tabularized but not formally compared. RESULTS: After matching, no significant differences were observed between mean ABR for rFVIIIFc and emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W. The proportion of patients with zero bleeds was significantly higher with rFVIIIFc compared with emicizumab administered Q4W (51.2% versus 29.3%, respectively; odds ratio 2.53; 95% confidence interval 1.09-5.89); no significant differences noted when rFVIIIFc was compared with emicizumab administered Q1W or Q2W. The mean number of adverse events expressed per participant was 1.9 for individualized prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and 3.7-4.0, 4.1 and 3.6 for emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W, respectively. CONCLUSION: This indirect treatment comparison suggests that rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis is more efficacious than emicizumab Q4W, and at least as effective as more frequent emicizumab regimens, for the management of hemophilia A.
Authors: James E Signorovitch; Vanja Sikirica; M Haim Erder; Jipan Xie; Mei Lu; Paul S Hodgkins; Keith A Betts; Eric Q Wu Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Johannes Oldenburg; Johnny N Mahlangu; Benjamin Kim; Christophe Schmitt; Michael U Callaghan; Guy Young; Elena Santagostino; Rebecca Kruse-Jarres; Claude Negrier; Craig Kessler; Nancy Valente; Elina Asikanius; Gallia G Levy; Jerzy Windyga; Midori Shima Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marilyn J Manco-Johnson; Thomas C Abshire; Amy D Shapiro; Brenda Riske; Michele R Hacker; Ray Kilcoyne; J David Ingram; Michael L Manco-Johnson; Sharon Funk; Linda Jacobson; Leonard A Valentino; W Keith Hoots; George R Buchanan; Donna DiMichele; Michael Recht; Deborah Brown; Cindy Leissinger; Shirley Bleak; Alan Cohen; Prasad Mathew; Alison Matsunaga; Desiree Medeiros; Diane Nugent; Gregory A Thomas; Alexis A Thompson; Kevin McRedmond; J Michael Soucie; Harlan Austin; Bruce L Evatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-08-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Johnny Mahlangu; Jerry S Powell; Margaret V Ragni; Pratima Chowdary; Neil C Josephson; Ingrid Pabinger; Hideji Hanabusa; Naresh Gupta; Roshni Kulkarni; Patrick Fogarty; David Perry; Amy Shapiro; K John Pasi; Shashikant Apte; Ivan Nestorov; Haiyan Jiang; Shuanglian Li; Srividya Neelakantan; Lynda M Cristiano; Jaya Goyal; Jurg M Sommer; Jennifer A Dumont; Nigel Dodd; Karen Nugent; Gloria Vigliani; Alvin Luk; Aoife Brennan; Glenn F Pierce Journal: Blood Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Beatrice Nolan; Johnny Mahlangu; Ingrid Pabinger; Guy Young; Barbara A Konkle; Chris Barnes; Keiji Nogami; Elena Santagostino; K John Pasi; Liane Khoo; Bent Winding; Huixing Yuan; Joachim Fruebis; Dan Rudin; Johannes Oldenburg Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 4.287
Authors: Angelika Batorova; Ana Boban; Melen Brinza; Toshiko Lissitchkov; Laszlo Nemes; Irena Zupan Preložnik; Petr Smejkal; Nadezhda Zozulya; Jerzy Windyga Journal: J Med Life Date: 2022-04