Factor VIII alloantibody inhibitors: cost analysis of immune tolerance induction vs. prophylaxis and on-demand with bypass treatment

Race and ethnicity and the success of immune tolerance induction among people with severe haemophilia A in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the only treatment to eradicate inhibitors in people with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors. Since the risk of inhibitor development is greater among Black and Hispanic persons, it has been hypothesized that race and ethnicity may influence ITI success. Limited studies have evaluated this hypothesis.

AIM

To examine the success of ITI according to race and ethnicity.

METHODS

Participants who entered the Community Counts (CC) Registry between 2013 and 2017, were aged ≥3 years at study entry, and received ITI were included (n = 559). The proportion of participants with successful ITI was examined with adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Among 559 participants, 56.9%, 19.1%, 18.1% and 4.3% were Non-Hispanic (NH) White, NH Black, Hispanic and Asian, respectively, and 1.7% were coded as other or missing. Approximately 80% of Hispanic, NH Black and NH White participants had good/very good prognosis, defined as having a pre-ITI peak inhibitor of < 200 Bethesda Units per millilitre. Nearly 60% of participants (59.7%) achieved successful ITI, 20.7% and 19.5% experienced partially successful or failed ITI, respectively. Successful ITI was non-significantly lower in NH Black (54.2%; aPR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.44) and Hispanic (55.4%; aPR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13) relative to NH White participants (62.6%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, 60% of participants in the CC Registry had successful ITI, consistent with previous studies. The proportion with successful ITI was generally comparable across racial and ethnic groups with similar prognosis. These findings do not support the hypothesis that ITI response varies according to race or ethnicity.

Assessing health plan payer's budget impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of hemophilia B in the United States

BACKGROUND

Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a recently approved gene therapy for people with hemophilia B (PwHB). Current standard of care is prophylaxis with factor IX (FIX) to prevent bleeding. Etranacogene dezaparvovec increases blood FIX levels such that FIX prophylaxis could be eliminated.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budgetary impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption and utilization in a commercial health plan of the United States.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to evaluate the introduction of etranacogene dezaparvovec to treat severe or moderately severe hemophilia B. The model considered a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year horizon. FIX therapy prophylaxis use was estimated based on a weighted average of relevant brands using US market share data. A scenario of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption/utilization was compared with one without etranacogene dezaparvovec utilization. Two etranacogene dezaparvovec uptake (market share growth) analyses were performed: one with gradual uptake and alternatively assuming all eligible PwHB received etranacogene dezaparvovec in year 1. The one-time cost of etranacogene dezaparvovec was assumed to be $3.5 million. Other costs (FIX prophylaxis, disease monitoring, bleed management, and adverse events) were estimated from published literature. All costs were in 2022 US dollars. Bleed and adverse event rates were sourced from the HOPE-B trial comparing etranacogene dezaparvovec to previous FIX therapy prophylaxis. The model estimated annual and per-member per-month costs over 5 years. Secondary analyses were performed considering a 10-year horizon.

RESULTS

In the 1-million-member health plan, an estimated 1.8 PwHB were eligible for treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec. Gradual uptake of etranacogene dezaparvovec resulted in cumulative 5-year budget impact of $848,509 compared with a scenario without etranacogene dezaparvovec. In years 1-5, the incremental annual and per-member per-month costs ranged from $79,824 to $271,435 and from $0.007 to $0.023, respectively. In the alternative uptake analysis, etranacogene dezaparvovec became cost saving annually beginning in year 2 and cumulatively beginning in year 5, for a 5-year savings of $754,844. Secondary analyses over 10 years found both uptake analyses cost saving. Other scenarios considered did not affect results substantially.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing etranacogene dezaparvovec as treatment for PwHB would have a modest budget increase within 5 years after treatment but may become cost saving if all eligible PwHB were treated in year 1. Initiating PwHB on etranacogene dezaparvovec sooner may produce greater overall savings and earlier annual savings. Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a treatment option that may provide overall cost savings for US commercial health plans, which would increase as the plan size increases.

Gene Therapy in Hemophilia A: Achievements, Challenges, and Perspectives

Strides in advancements of care of persons with hemophilia include development of long-acting factor replacement therapies, novel substitution and hemostatic rebalancing agents, and most recently approved gene therapy. Several decades of preclinical and clinical trials have led to development of adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector-mediated gene transfer for endogenous production of factor VIII (FVIII) in hemophilia A (HA). Only one gene therapy product for HA (valoctocogene roxaparvovec) has been approved by regulatory authorities. Results of valoctocogene roxaparvovec trial show significant improvement in bleeding rates and use of factor replacement therapy; however, sustainability and duration of response show variability with overall decline in FVIII expression over time. Further challenges include untoward adverse effects involving liver toxicity requiring immunosuppression and development of neutralizing antibodies to AAV vector rendering future doses ineffective. Real-life applicability of gene therapy for HA will require appropriate patient screening, infrastructure setup, long-term monitoring including data collection of patient-reported outcomes and innovative payment schemes. This review article highlights the success and development of HA gene therapy trials, challenges including adverse outcomes and variability of response, and perspectives on approach to gene therapy including shared decision-making and need for future strategies to overcome the several unmet needs.

Nothing short of a revolution: Novel extended half-life factor VIII replacement products and non-replacement agents reshape the treatment landscape in hemophilia A

Hemophilia A, an X-linked genetic disorder, is characterized by a deficiency or dysfunction of clotting Factor VIII. The treatment landscape has substantially changed by introducing novel extended half-life factor VIII (EHL-FVIII) replacement therapies such as efanesoctocog Alfa and non-factor replacement therapy such as emicizumab. These agents signal a shift from treatments requiring multiple weekly infusions to advanced therapies with long half-lives, offering superior protection against bleeding and improving patient adherence and quality of life. While EHL-FVIII treatment might lead to inhibitor development in some patients, non-factor replacement therapy carries thrombotic risks. Therefore, ongoing research and the generation of robust clinical evidence remain vital to guide the selection of optimal and cost-effective first-line therapies for hemophilia A patients.

Are We Capturing the Socioeconomic Burden of Rare Genetic Disease? A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations and Cost-of-Illness Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rare diseases have a significant impact on patients, families, the health system, and society. Measuring the socioeconomic burden is crucial to valuing interventions for rare diseases. Healthcare system costs are significant, but so are costs to other government sectors, patients, families, and society. To understand the breadth of costs captured in rare disease studies, we examined the cost categories and elements of socioeconomic burden captured in published studies.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using five electronic databases to identify English language economic evaluations and cost-of-illness studies of interventions for rare diseases (2011-21). We mapped costs using a previously developed evidence-informed framework of socioeconomic burden costs for rare disease.

RESULTS

Of 4890 studies identified, 48 economic evaluations and 22 cost-of-illness studies were included. While 18/22 cost-of-illness studies utilized a societal perspective, only 7/48 economic evaluations incorporated societal costs. Most reported cost categories related to medical costs, with medication and hospitalizations being the most common elements for both study designs. Costs borne by patients, families, and society were reported less among economic evaluations than cost-of-illness studies. These included: productivity (10% vs 77%), travel/accommodation (6% vs 68%), government benefits (4% vs 18%), and family impacts (0% vs 50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to cost-of-illness analyses, most of the included economic evaluations did not account for the hidden burden of rare diseases, that is, costs borne by patients, families, and societies. Including these types of costs in future studies would provide a more comprehensive picture of the burden of disease, providing empirical data to inform how we value and make decisions regarding rare disease interventions, health policy, and resource allocation.

A review of the rationale for gene therapy for hemophilia A with inhibitors: one-shot tolerance and treatment?

The therapeutic landscape for people living with hemophilia A (PwHA) has changed dramatically in recent years, but many clinical challenges remain, including the development of inhibitory antibodies directed against factor VIII (FVIII) that occur in approximately 30% of people with severe hemophilia A. Emicizumab, an FVIII mimetic bispecific monoclonal antibody, provides safe and effective bleeding prophylaxis for many PwHA, but clinicians still explore therapeutic strategies that result in immunologic tolerance to FVIII to enable effective treatment with FVIII for problematic bleeding events. This immune tolerance induction (ITI) to FVIII is typically accomplished through repeated long-term exposure to FVIII using a variety of protocols. Meanwhile, gene therapy has recently emerged as a novel ITI option that provides an intrinsic, consistent source of FVIII. As gene therapy and other therapies now expand therapeutic options for PwHA, we review the persistent unmet medical needs with respect to FVIII inhibitors and effective ITI in PwHA, the immunology of FVIII tolerization, the latest research on tolerization strategies, and the role of liver-directed gene therapy to mediate FVIII ITI.

Factor VIII antibody immune complexes modulate the humoral response to factor VIII in an epitope-dependent manner

Introduction

Soluble antigens complexed with immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies can induce robust adaptive immune responses in vitro and in animal models of disease. Factor VIII immune complexes (FVIII-ICs) have been detected in individuals with hemophilia A and severe von Willebrand disease following FVIII infusions. Yet, it is unclear if and how FVIII-ICs affect antibody development over time.

Methods

In this study, we analyzed internalization of FVIII complexed with epitope-mapped FVIII-specific IgG monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) by murine bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (BMDCs) in vitro and antibody development in hemophilia A (FVIII-/-) mice injected with FVIII-IC over time.

Results

FVIII complexed with 2-116 (A1 domain MAb), 2-113 (A3 domain MAb), and I55 (C2 domain MAb) significantly increased FVIII uptake by BMDC but only FVIII/2-116 enhanced antibody titers in FVIII-/- mice compared to FVIII alone. FVIII/4A4 (A2 domain MAb) showed similar FVIII uptake by BMDC to that of isolated FVIII yet significantly increased antibody titers when injected in FVIII-/- mice. Enhanced antibody responses observed with FVIII/2-116 and FVIII/4A4 complexes in vivo were abrogated in the absence of the FVIII carrier protein von Willebrand factor.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that a subset of FVIII-IC modulates the humoral response to FVIII in an epitope-dependent manner, which may provide insight into the antibody response observed in some patients with hemophilia A.

Economic Evaluation of Immune Tolerance Induction in Children With Severe Hemophilia A and High-Responding Inhibitors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis With Emicizumab

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with emicizumab in PsHAhri on ITI in Brazil.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness modeling analysis was used to estimate the costs per PsHAhri on ITI and the number of prevented bleedings from undertaking one intervention (prophylaxis with BpA) over another (prophylaxis with emicizumab), based on the Brazilian Ministry of Health perspective. Costs of ITI with recombinant FVIII, prophylaxis with BpA or emicizumab, and treated bleeding episodes with BpA costs were evaluated for PsHAhri who had ITI success or failure. This study was conducted with the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (payer).

RESULTS

During ITI, prophylaxis with BpA cost US $924 666/PsHAhri/ITI, whereas prophylaxis with emicizumab cost US $488 785/PsHAhri/ITI. During ITI, there was an average of 9.32 bleeding episodes/PsHAhri/ITI when BpA were used as prophylaxis and 0.67 bleeding/PsHAhri/ITI when emicizumab was used. By univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis, emicizumab remained dominant whichever variable was modified.

CONCLUSION

In this study, prophylaxis with emicizumab during ITI is a dominant option compared with prophylaxis with BpA during ITI.

Modeling Benefits, Costs, and Affordability of a Novel Gene Therapy in Hemophilia A

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The objective was to undertake an early cost-effectiveness assessment of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (valrox; Roctavian) compared to factor (F)VIII prophylaxis or emicizumab (Hemlibra; Roche HQ, Bazel, Switzerland) in patients with severe Hemophilia A (HA) without FVIII-antibodies. We also aimed to incorporate and quantify novel measures of value such as treatment durability, maximum value-based price (MVBP) and break-even time (ie, time until benefits begin to offset upfront payment). We constructed a Markov model to model bleeds over time which were linked to costs and quality-of-life decrements. In the valrox arm, FVIII over time was estimated combining initial effect and treatment waning and then linked to bleeds. In FVIII and emicizumab arms, bleeds were based on trial evidence. Evidence and assumptions were validated using expert elicitation. Model robustness was tested via sensitivity analyses. A Dutch societal perspective was applied with a 10-year time horizon. Valrox in comparison to FVIII, and emicizumab showed small increases in quality-adjusted life years at lower costs, and were therefore dominant. Valrox’ base case MVBP was estimated at €2.65 million/treatment compared to FVIII and €3.5 million/treatment versus emicizumab. Mean break-even time was 8.03 years compared to FVIII and 5.68 years to emicizumab. Early modeling of patients with HA in The Netherlands treated with valrox resulted in estimated improved health and lower cost compared to prophylactic FVIII and emicizumab. We also demonstrated feasibility of incorporation of treatment durability and novel outcomes such as value-based pricing scenarios and break-even time. Future work should aim to better characterize uncertainties and increase translation of early modeling to direct research efforts.

Haemophilia

Haemophilia A and B are rare congenital, recessive X-linked disorders caused by lack or deficiency of clotting factor VIII (FVIII) or IX (FIX), respectively. The severity of the disease depends on the reduction of levels of FVIII or FIX, which are determined by the type of the causative mutation in the genes encoding the factors (F8 and F9, respectively). The hallmark clinical characteristic, especially in untreated severe forms, is bleeding (spontaneous or after trauma) into major joints such as ankles, knees and elbows, which can result in the development of arthropathy. Intracranial bleeds and bleeds into internal organs may be life-threatening. The median life expectancy was ~30 years until the 1960s, but improved understanding of the disorder and development of efficacious therapy based on prophylactic replacement of the missing factor has caused a paradigm shift, and today individuals with haemophilia can look forward to a virtually normal life expectancy and quality of life. Nevertheless, the potential development of inhibitory antibodies to infused factor is still a major hurdle to overcome in a substantial proportion of patients. Finally, gene therapy for both types of haemophilia has progressed remarkably and could soon become a reality.

Gene therapy may not be as expensive as people think: challenges in assessing the value of single and short-term therapies

At an upfront price of $2.125 million, the one-time gene therapy onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy, a rare neuromuscular disorder that is usually fatal by 2 years of age if untreated, has been called the "most expensive drug ever." This flawed characterization raises important methodological and policy issues regarding valuation of high-cost treatments. We reviewed several other high-cost therapies-with a particular focus on hemophilia A treatment-studied by the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). In ICER's summary report of 2 treatments for managing hemophilia A, published in this month's JMCP issue, the estimated $15-$18 million lifetime cost of factor VIII is characterized as "far too high," representing "a failure of competition [that] … builds a platform for pricing of treatments … that will only exacerbate these problems." Current literature indicates several factors underlying high factor VIII treatment cost (eg, historical pattern of innovation and lack of market competition) that may also drive the pricing dynamics of advanced therapies for other rare diseases. When a treatment's price is driven high (or "distorted"), an economic principle known as "theory of the second best" suggests that market price becomes a poor estimate of social opportunity cost, and adjustments should be made for such distortions. In any case, a high-cost standard of care creates an opportunity for new technology to generate cost savings, providing an inducement for market entry. Recognizing that this potentially creates a tendency to produce price distortions for new treatments, ICER has attempted to apply some ad hoc adjustments. However, challenges remain in creating a "level playing field" across different disease-modifying or potentially curative innovations (eg, one-time therapy vs ongoing or lifelong treatment with repeated doses). While additional policy work is needed to address this dilemma, it would clearly be misleading to assume that gene therapies are inherently expensive. Rigorous economic evaluation of novel therapies requires careful comparison of lifetime cost and benefits vs standard of care, including adjustments for pricing distortions. Fortunately, economic theory suggests that we could adjust to this circumstance by using the social opportunity costs of interventions based on an appropriate variable cost-effectiveness threshold that would be higher for rare severe diseases. DISCLOSURES: The research reported in this Viewpoints article was funded by Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc. Garrison and Jiao were paid by Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., to conduct this research. Garrison has also received consulting fees from BioMarin, Inc, and UniQure. Dabbous is a full-time employee of Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., and holds Novartis stock and stock options.

Costs of the management of hemophilia A with inhibitors in Spain

Introduction

Emicizumab is a first-in-class monoclonal antibody, recently authorized for the treatment of hemophilia A with inhibitors. This study aims to estimate the direct and indirect costs of the management of hemophilia A with inhibitors, in adult and pediatric patients, including the prophylaxis with emicizumab.

Methods

We calculated the costs of the on-demand and prophylactic treatments with bypassing agents (activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant activated factor VII) and the emicizumab prophylaxis, from the societal perspective, over 1 year. The study considered direct healthcare costs (drugs, visits, tests, and hospitalizations), direct non-healthcare costs (informal caregivers), and indirect costs (productivity loss). Data were obtained from a literature review and were validated by an expert group. Costs were expressed in 2019 euros.

Results

Our results showed that the annual costs of the prophylactic treatment per patient varied between €543,062.99 and €821,415.77 for adults, and €182,764.43 and €319,826.59 for children, while on-demand treatment was €532,706.84 and €789,341.91 in adults, and €167,523.05 and €238,304.71 in pediatric patients. In relation to other prophylactic therapies, emicizumab showed the lowest costs, with up to a 34% and 43% reduction in the management cost of adult and pediatric patients, respectively. It reduced the bleeding events and administration costs, as this drug is less frequently administered by subcutaneous route. Emicizumab prophylaxis also decreased the cost of other healthcare resources such as visits, tests, and hospitalizations, as well as indirect costs.

Conclusion

In comparison to prophylaxis with bypassing agents, emicizumab reduced direct and indirect costs, resulting in cost savings for the National Health System and society.

Adult lifetime cost of hemophilia B management in the US: payer and societal perspectives from a decision analytic model

AIMS

Hemophilia B (HB) is a rare congenital disorder characterized by bleeding-related complications which are managed by prophylactic or post-bleeding event ("on-demand") replacement of clotting factor IX (FIX). The standard of care for severe HB is life-long prophylaxis with standard half-life (SHL) or extended half-life (EHL) products given every 2-3 or 7-14 days, respectively. FIX treatment costs in the US have been investigated, but the lifetime costs of HB treatment have not been well characterized, particularly related to the impact of joint health deterioration and associated health resource utilization. We developed a decision-analytic model to explore outcomes, costs and underlying cost drivers associated with FIX treatment options over the lifetime of an adult with severe or moderately severe HB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With participation from clinicians, health technology assessment specialists and patient advocates, a Markov model was constructed to estimate bleeding events and costs associated with health states including "bleed into joint", "bleed not into joint", "no bleed" and "death". Sub-models of joint health were based on 0, 1, or ≥2 areas of chronic joint damage. US third-party payer and societal perspectives were considered with a lifetime horizon; sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of primary findings.

RESULTS

Total adult lifetime costs per patient with severe and moderately severe HB were $21,086,607 for SHL FIX prophylaxis, $22,987,483 for EHL FIX prophylaxis, and $20,971,826 for on-demand FIX treatment. For FIX prophylaxis, the cost of FIX treatment accounts for >90% of the total HB treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision analytic model demonstrated significant economic burden associated with the current HB treatment paradigm.

Cost-effectiveness of emicizumab vs bypassing agents in the prevention of bleeding episodes in haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors in France

INTRODUCTION

The development of an anti-FVIII inhibitor is the most serious complication of haemophilia A occurring in up to 30% of severe haemophilic patients. The current management of haemophilia A with inhibitor uses bypassing agents (BPA) and represents a significant therapeutic burden together with a limited adherence to prophylactic treatment. Emicizumab is the first monoclonal antibody developed in haemophilia A approved for the prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with anti-FVIII inhibitor.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of emicizumab versus BPAs.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed over a five-year time horizon to estimate the comparative costs and benefits of the different therapeutic approaches in this rare disease. Model inputs were clinical, including annual bleeding rate and quality of life, and economical including mainly costs of prophylaxis, bleeds and adverse events.

RESULTS

Emicizumab treatment is dominant, ie lest costly and more effective, in the base-case analysis saving 234 191 € for a gain of 0.88 QALY. This is confirmed by both the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The main limit of the study remains the absence of long-term clinical data allowing to relate treatment consumption to clinical benefit, especially in the progression of haemophilic arthropathy.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that emicizumab is a cost-effective treatment allowing to consider an easy to implement prophylactic treatment for haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors.

Model of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Emicizumab Prophylaxis Treatment for Persons with Hemophilia A

BACKGROUND

Hemophilia A (HA) can result in bleeding events because of low or absent clotting factor VIII (FVIII). Prophylactic treatment for severe HA includes replacement FVIII infusions and emicizumab, a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an economic model to predict the short- and long-term clinical and economic outcomes of prophylaxis with emicizumab versus short-acting recombinant FVIII among persons with HA in the United States.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare clinical outcomes and costs of emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis among persons with severe HA from U.S. payer and societal perspectives. Patients started prophylaxis at age 1 year in the base case. Mutually exclusive health states considered were "no arthropathy," "arthropathy," "surgery," and "death." Serious adverse events, breakthrough bleeds, and inhibitor development were simulated throughout the modeled time horizon. In addition to the prophylaxis drug costs, patients could incur other direct costs related to breakthrough bleeds treatment, serious adverse events, development of inhibitors, arthropathy, and orthopedic surgery. Indirect costs associated with productivity loss (i.e., missed work or disabilities) were applied for adults. Model inputs were obtained from the HAVEN 3 trial, published literature, and expert opinion. The model used a lifetime horizon, and results for 1 year and 5 years were also reported. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to assess robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, the cumulative number of all treated bleeds and joint bleeds avoided on emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis were 278.2 and 151.7, respectively. Correspondingly, arthropathy (mean age at onset: 12.9 vs. 5.4 years) and FVIII inhibitor development (mean age at development: 13.9 vs. 1.1 years) were delayed. Total direct and indirect costs were lower for emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis for all modeled time horizons ($97,159 vs. $331,610 at 1 year; $603,146 vs. $1,459,496 at 5 years; and $15,238,072 vs. $22,820,281 over a lifetime horizon). The sensitivity analyses indicated that clinical outcomes were sensitive to efficacy inputs, while economic outcomes were driven by the discount rate, dosing schedules, and treatments after inhibitor development. Results for moderate to severe patients were consistent with findings in the severe HA population.

CONCLUSIONS

The model suggests that emicizumab prophylaxis confers additional clinical benefits, resulting in a lower number of bleeding events and delayed onset of arthropathy and inhibitor development across all time assessment horizons. Compared with short-acting recombinant FVIII, emicizumab prophylaxis leads to superior patient outcomes and cost savings from U.S. payer and societal perspectives.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided by Genentech. Raimundo and Patel are employees of Genentech and own stock or stock options. Zhou, Han, Ji, Fang, Zhong, and Betts are employees of Analysis Group, which received consultancy fees from Genentech for conducting this study. Mahajerin received consultancy fees from Genentech for work on this study. Portions of this research were presented as a poster at the 2018 American Society of Hematology Conference; December 1-4, 2018; San Diego, CA.

FVIII Immunogenicity-Bioinformatic Approaches to Evaluate Inhibitor Risk in Non-severe Hemophilia A

The life-long inhibitor risk in non-severe hemophilia A has been an important clinical and research focus in recent years. Non-severe hemophilia A is most commonly caused by point mutation, missense F8 genotypes, of which over 500 variants are described. The immunogenic potential of just a single amino acid change within a complex 2,332 amino acid protein is an important reminder of the challenges of protein replacement therapies in diverse, global populations. Although some F8 genotypes have been identified as "high risk" mutations in non-severe hemophilia A (e.g., R593C), this is likely, in part at least, a reporting bias and oversimplification of the underlying immunological mechanism. Bioinformatic approaches offer a strategy to dissect the contribution of F8 genotype in the context of the wider HLA diversity through which antigenic peptides will necessarily be presented. Extensive modeling of all permutations of FVIII-derived fifteen-mer peptides straddling all reported F8 genotype positions demonstrate the likely heterogeneity of peptide binding affinity to different HLA II grooves. For the majority of F8 genotypes it is evident that inhibitor risk prediction is dependent on the combination of F8 genotype and available HLA II. Only a minority of FVIII-derived peptides are predicted to bind to all candidate HLA molecules. In silico predictions still over call the risk of inhibitor occurrence, suggestive of mechanisms of "protection" against clinically meaningful inhibitor events. The structural homology between FVIII and FV provides an attractive mechanism by which some F8 genotypes may be afforded co-incidental tolerance through homology of FV and FVIII primary amino sequence. In silico strategies enable the extension of this hypothesis to analyse the extent to which co-incidental cross-matching exists between FVIII-derived primary peptide sequences and any other protein in the entire human proteome and thus potential central tolerance. This review of complimentary in vitro, in silico, and clinical epidemiology data documents incremental insights into immunological mechanism of inhibitor occurrence in non-severe hemophilia A over the last decade. However, complex questions remain about antigenic processing and presentation to truly understand and predict an individual person with hemophilia risk of inhibitor occurrence.

Assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of a gene therapy for the treatment of hemophilia A

Aim: Hemophilia A is a genetic, chronic disorder classified by deficient or defective coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) that puts those affected at risk for spontaneous bleeding episodes, which lead to joint damage and chronic pain over time. Currently, most severe hemophilia A patients are treated with prophylactic FVIII, which requires costly and frequent infusions and life-long adherence to medication. A gene therapy (valoctocogene roxaparvovec) is currently in development for the treatment of severe hemophilia A. This model assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of treating patients with valoctocogene roxaparvovec rather than prophylactic therapy.Materials and methods: We developed an individual-based, state-transition microsimulation model for assessing the likely cost-effectiveness of valoctocogene roxaparvovec compared to prophylactic FVIII. Men aged 30 with severe hemophilia A were modeled over a lifetime horizon, and costs were reported from the perspective of the United States health care system. Through microsimulation, patient-level heterogeneity was captured in starting weight, starting Pettersson score (PS), durability of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, and annual bleed rate (ABR).Results: The model projects that treatment with single-administration valoctocogene roxaparvovec would be cost-saving to people with hemophilia A at a price point comparable to other currently available gene therapy products due to its potential to reduce FVIII utilization, direct medical costs, lifetime bleeds, and accumulated joint damage.Limitations: The model relies upon evidence-based assumptions for clinical inputs due to limited data availability. Such uncertainty was mitigated by modeling heterogeneity across the population, specifically with regards to long-term gene therapy durability, lifetime bleed rates, and joint damage progression.Conclusion: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec was found to be cost-saving-on average by about $6.8 million per patient-and more effective than prophylactic therapy for treatment of hemophilia A. The comparative benefit of gene therapy was observed across a broad range of simulated patients that were representative of the real-world severe hemophilia A population.

Hemophilia A with inhibitor: Immune tolerance induction (ITI) in the mirror of time

Inhibitor (neutralizing antibodies) development remains the most significant complication in patients with severe congenital hemophilia A receiving exogenous factor VIII (FVIII). Although our understanding of the pathophysiology of inhibitor development has advanced, the knowledge gained has not yet translated into a robust decline in incidence, with the overall risk remaining at ∼30%. Immune Tolerance Induction (ITI) is the only current method to successfully eradicate an inhibitor and achieve long-term tolerance. Although current practice utilizes a wide variety of ITI regimens, identification of an optimal regimen has not emerged. Over the last decade, the number of replacement products available in hemophilia has greatly expanded. The cumulative evidence with each product for use in ITI is often lacking. Most recently emicizumab, a humanized monoclonal bi-specific antibody that substitutes for the scaffolding effect of FVIIIa was approved; this agent prevents bleeding in both inhibitor and non-inhibitor patients. The use of emicizumab will bring about a new era in care that will require clinicians to challenge current practice paradigms including use and administration of ITI. This review will summarize the main clinical ITI data and practices for patients with severe congenital hemophilia A with inhibitors (CHAwI) over the last four decades and will highlight current studies in the field, with attention to open questions.

The changing face of immune tolerance induction in haemophilia A with the advent of emicizumab

INTRODUCTION

As a result of the new treatment paradigm that the haemophilia community will face with the availability of novel (non-factor) therapies, an updated consensus on ITI recommendations and inhibitor management strategies is needed.

AIM

The Future of Immunotolerance Treatment (FIT) group was established to contemplate, determine and recommend the best management options for patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Despite the considerable success of emicizumab in the management of inhibitor patients, the FIT group still sees the importance of eradicating inhibitors. However, the availability of emicizumab and other non-factor therapies in the future might impact greatly on how ITI is undertaken. Theoretically, concomitant use of emicizumab and FVIII might allow emicizumab to effectively prevent bleeding with lower dose ITI regimens. This might allow for the greater adoption of low-dose/low-frequency FVIII ITI regimens, which may result in a reduced need for central venous access devices while still maintaining a reasonable likelihood of ITI success. The FIT group proposes a new management algorithm for current ITI (without emicizumab) and a hypothetical new approach with the availability of emicizumab. As there are no published data regarding the concomitant use of emicizumab and FVIII for ITI, the FIT Expert group encourages the undertaking of properly conducted prospective studies to explore these approaches further.

Inhibitors: A Need for Eradication?

The development of inhibitors against factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates represents a significant treatment complication for hemophilia. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy eradicates inhibitors in 60-80% of patients, resulting in a normal FVIII response. This article, based on presentations at the 6th International Coagulation Meeting, held in Barcelona, Spain, in September 2017, provides an overview of management approaches for patients with inhibitors and briefly tabulates four cases of ITI therapy (first-line or rescue ITI therapy in pediatric and adult patients) with successful outcomes. Switching FVIII product from recombinant FVIII to plasma-derived FVIII/VWF concentrate may be helpful in eradicating inhibitors. The rate of decline of inhibitor titer in the initial stages of ITI therapy is a good indicator of the success or failure of therapy, although prognostic biomarkers are needed. The development of the bispecific monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which was recently shown to reduce bleeding in inhibitor patients, offers a potential alternative therapeutic option. However, the benefits of inhibitor eradication, including a wider choice of cheaper therapeutic products for preventing and treating bleeds, suggest that at least one attempt of ITI therapy should be offered to patients who develop inhibitors.

Eptacog beta: a novel recombinant human factor VIIa for the treatment of hemophilia A and B with inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Hemophilia A and B are X-linked recessive disorders caused by the deficiency of factor VIII or factor IX, respectively. Bleeding episodes are treated with factor replacement therapy. The most serious complication of this treatment is the development of inhibitors. In such patients, bypassing agents, such as activated recombinant human factor VII (rhFVIIa) or plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrates, are administered to prevent or treat bleeding episodes. The high cost of the current bypassing agents limits their availability in emerging countries. Areas covered: Authors reviewed the published data on the development and clinical testing of eptacog beta, a new second-generation rhFVIIa produced in the milk of transgenic rabbits. The available data indicate that activated eptacog beta exhibits structural (N- and O- glycosylation), pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics similar to activated eptacog alfa, its main competitor, but binds slightly better to platelets and HUVEC, and it is safe and effective. Expert commentary: This critical review of available data on activated eptacog beta shows that it represents an alternative source of rhFVIIa at potentially lower cost with easily expandable manufacturing capacity that could contribute to cover the future patient needs.

Inhibitors in haemophilia A and B: Management of bleeds, inhibitor eradication and strategies for difficult-to-treat patients

The standard therapy for patients with haemophilia is prophylactic treatment with replacement factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX). Patients who develop inhibitors against FVIII/FIX face an increased risk of bleeding, and the likelihood of early development of progressive arthropathy, alongside higher treatment-related costs. Bypassing agents can be used to prevent and control bleeding, as well as the recently licensed prophylaxis, emicizumab, but their efficacy is less predictable than that of factor replacement therapy. Antibody eradication, by way of immune tolerance induction (ITI), is still the preferred management strategy for treating patients with inhibitors. This approach is successful in most patients, but some are difficult to tolerise and/or are unresponsive to ITI, and they represent the most complicated patients to treat. However, there are limited clinical data and guidelines available to help guide physicians in formulating the next treatment steps in these patients. This review summarises currently available treatment options for patients with inhibitors, focussing on ITI regimens and those ITI strategies that may be used in difficult-to-treat patients. Some alternative, non-ITI approaches for inhibitor management, are also proposed.

The future of bypassing agents for hemophilia with inhibitors in the era of novel agents

Bypassing agents are presently the standard of care for the treatment of bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia and high-titer inhibitors and are also used for bleed prevention. Only two bypassing agents are available to patients, and these products trace their lineage to the 1970s (activated prothrombin complex concentrates) and the 1980s (recombinant factor VIIa). Given the limited repertoire of available products, clinicians have relied on experience, empirical observation, registry data and individualized care to improve clinical outcomes on a case-by-case basis. Research over the past two decades has culminated in a greatly improved understanding of human coagulation; resulting from this, new products have been developed that offer treatment options and mechanisms of actions that differ from current bypassing agents. The most advanced in clinical development is emicizumab, a bispecific antibody that mimics the function of FVIIIa in the intrinsic Xase complex and is indicated for once-weekly or every-other-week prophylactic dosing in inhibitor patients. Other non-traditional products in clinical development include fitusiran and antibodies directed against tissue factor pathway inhibitor. As non-factor-based therapies become more widely utilized over time, the use of bypassing agents may be expected to decrease; however, bypassing agents will remain essential for the foreseeable future. As such, clinical development of bypassing agents continues, with some products (e.g. eptacog beta) under regulatory review. In this review we examine the optimal use of bypassing agents and their mechanism of action. We also discuss newer products and how these might theoretically be administered in conjunction with traditional bypassing agents.

Factors affecting the quality, safety and marketing approval of clotting factor concentrates for haemophilia

Selecting therapeutic products for the treatment of haemophilia follows the process of obtaining market approval of products submitted to the scrutiny of a regulatory agency. In well-resourced countries, key decisions on whether a product is sufficiently safe and of high quality are made by highly expert and well-resourced agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In countries lacking such agencies, well-informed decisions can still be made through an appreciation of the key issues affecting the quality, safety and efficacy of haemophilia products. A number of well-established principles may then be applied in order to make a choice. In this review, reflecting principles outlined by the World Federation of Hemophilia, we outline the key features in determining the acceptability of therapeutic products for haemophilia in order to ensure an optimal choice in all the environments providing haemophilia care.

Hemophilia Burden of Disease: A Systematic Review of the Cost-Utility Literature for Hemophilia

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with clotting factor replacement products is recommended by the Medical and Scientific Advisory Council of the National Hemophilia Foundation as the optimal therapy for the prevention of bleeding episodes in individuals with severe hemophilia A or B (< 1 IU per dL endogenous factor VIII or factor IX activity, respectively). Prophylaxis is associated with an improved health-related quality of life and has been shown to be cost-effective compared with on-demand therapy. However, the overall cost of treatment remains high, particularly among patients with a greater propensity to bleed. The overall value of hemophilia treatments and their associated benefits, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and dollar costs compared with other interventions can be evaluated through the use of cost-utility analyses (CUAs). Previous CUA studies in hemophilia have focused primarily on patients with more severe forms of hemophilia and on prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment. However, to our knowledge, no studies to date have utilized QALYs as a standardized outcome measure to systematically evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of current hemophilia treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the CUA literature of hemophilia treatments and demonstrate the challenges in producing cost-utility evidence compared with other rare diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for English-language CUAs published from 2000 through 2015 with the search terms hemophilia, haemophilia, factor VIII, or factor IX. Two trained reviewers independently reviewed every study to extract relevant data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were converted to 2014 U.S. dollars using exchange rates for currency conversion and the Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 52 studies, 11 of which met our inclusion criteria. The cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments varied widely based on variations in the study designs, including differences in time horizon, discount rates, and medical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

We found the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments to be broadly comparable to that of other orphan drugs. Improved standardization of future CUA studies will be important for further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments.

DISCLOSURES

This research was funded by Biogen, which provided an unrestricted research grant to the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Biogen and Sobi reviewed and provided feedback on the manuscript. The authors had full editorial control of the manuscript and provided final approval of all content. The authors report no conflict of interest regarding the material discussed in this article. Neumann and Chambers are employed at the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Thorat was an employee of Center for Evaluation Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center when the analyses were carried out. Chambers has participated on advisory boards for Sanofi and Astellas Pharma.

Modern Treatments of Haemophilia: Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses and Future Directions

BACKGROUND

Cost is currently one of the most important aspects in haemophilia care. Factor concentrates absorb more than 90% of healthcare direct costs of haemophilia care, and the debate regarding the high cost of haemophilia treatments and their different use across different countries is increasing.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review cost-effectiveness analyses conducted on treatment options in haemophilia, focusing on their results and their strengths and limitations; to highlight the possible issues associated with economic evaluations of new treatment options.

METHODS

Electronic searches in PubMed and EMBASE were performed to retrieve papers published between November 2015 and September 2017 to update the previous review of economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments by Drummond et al. Reference lists of included articles and reviews were examined for relevant studies, which were assessed for their quality and their empirical results.

RESULTS

Twenty-six relevant economic analyses were identified; 15 (57.7%) were conducted in patients with haemophilia with inhibitors while 11 (42.3%) involved patients without inhibitors. There were methodological variations among the included studies, and differences in the treatment schemes make a comparative assessment of interventions for patients with haemophilia difficult. Only immune tolerance induction showed consistent results in its cost-saving profile compared with the treatment with bypassing agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments are increasing, but the identification of general cost-effectiveness trends is still difficult in these studies. We are now facing a new era in haemophilia management with a soaring need for high-quality economic evaluations, performed through proactive collaboration between clinical experts, budget holders and health economists.

Treatment and Prevention of Bleeds in Haemophilia Patients with Inhibitors to Factor VIII/IX

The development of alloantibodies neutralising therapeutically administered factor (F) VIII/IX (inhibitors) is currently the most severe complication of the treatment of haemophilia. When persistent and at a high titre, inhibitors preclude the standard replacement treatment with FVIII/FIX concentrates, making patients’ management challenging. Indeed, the efficacy of bypassing agents, i.e., activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC) and recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa), needed to overcome the haemostatic interference of the inhibitor, is not comparable to that of factor concentrates. In addition, the therapeutical response is unpredictable, with a relevant inter-individual and even intra-individual variability, and no laboratory assay is validated to monitor the efficacy and safety of the treatment. As a result, inhibitor patients have a worse joint status and quality of life compared to inhibitor-free subjects and the eradication of the inhibitor by immune tolerance induction is the preeminent therapeutic goal, particularly in children. However, over the last decades, treatment with bypassing agents has been optimised, allowing home treatment and the individualisation of regimens aimed at improving clinical outcomes. In this respect, a growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of prophylaxis with both bypassing agents in reducing bleeding rates and improving the quality of life, although the impact on long-term outcomes (in particular on preventing/reducing joint deterioration) is still unknown. This review offers an update on the current knowledge and practice of the use of bypassing agents in haemophiliacs with inhibitors, as well as on debated issues and unmet needs in this challenging setting.

The burden of inhibitors in haemophilia patients

The burden of disease in haemophilia patients has wide ranging implications for the family and to society. There is evidence that having a current inhibitor increases the risk of morbidity and mortality. Morbidity is increased by the inability to treat adequately and its consequent disabilities, which then equates to a poor quality of life compared with non-inhibitor patients. The societal cost of care, or `burden of inhibitors', increases with the ongoing presence of an inhibitor. Therefore, it is clear that successful eradication of inhibitors by immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the single most important milestone one can achieve in an inhibitor patient. The type of factor VIII (FVIII) product used in ITI regimens varies worldwide. Despite ongoing debate, there is in vitro and retrospective clinical evidence to support the use of plasma-derived VWF-containing FVIII concentrates in ITI regimens in order to achieve early and high inhibitor eradication success rates.

Comorbidities and inhibitors in adult patients with haemophilia: issues, costs and management strategies

Along with greater life expectancy in patients with haemophilia has been an increase in associated haemophilia-related (arthropathy, osteoporosis, viral infections) and age-related (cardiovascular disease, renal disease, cancer and others) comorbidities, many of which are only just emerging as the population ages. At present, experience in managing these comorbidities is limited. As the demographic shift continues, haemophilia care centres can expect to encounter more patients with greater levels of complexity. In the absence of evidence-based information to guide the management of adult patients with haemophilia, it is important that the scientific position be reviewed on a regular basis. To this end, several topics relevant to the clinical management of adult patients with haemophilia were examined in a symposium entitled Comorbidities and inhibitors in adult patients with haemophilia: issues, costs and management strategies held on 11 February 2015 in Helsinki, Finland, in conjunction with the 8th Annual Congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders. This article is a summary of that event.

High-affinity, noninhibitory pathogenic C1 domain antibodies are present in patients with hemophilia A and inhibitors

Inhibitor formation in hemophilia A is the most feared treatment-related complication of factor VIII (fVIII) therapy. Most inhibitor patients with hemophilia A develop antibodies against the fVIII A2 and C2 domains. Recent evidence demonstrates that the C1 domain contributes to the inhibitor response. Inhibitory anti-C1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been identified that bind to putative phospholipid and von Willebrand factor (VWF) binding epitopes and block endocytosis of fVIII by antigen presenting cells. We now demonstrate by competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry that 7 of 9 anti-human C1 mAbs tested recognize an epitope distinct from the C1 phospholipid binding site. These mAbs, designated group A, display high binding affinities for fVIII, weakly inhibit fVIII procoagulant activity, poorly inhibit fVIII binding to phospholipid, and exhibit heterogeneity with respect to blocking fVIII binding to VWF. Another mAb, designated group B, inhibits fVIII procoagulant activity, fVIII binding to VWF and phospholipid, fVIIIa incorporation into the intrinsic Xase complex, thrombin generation in plasma, and fVIII uptake by dendritic cells. Group A and B epitopes are distinct from the epitope recognized by the canonical, human-derived inhibitory anti-C1 mAb, KM33, whose epitope overlaps both groups A and B. Antibodies recognizing group A and B epitopes are present in inhibitor plasmas from patients with hemophilia A. Additionally, group A and B mAbs increase fVIII clearance and are pathogenic in a hemophilia A mouse tail snip bleeding model. Group A anti-C1 mAbs represent the first identification of pathogenic, weakly inhibitory antibodies that increase fVIII clearance.

An innovative outcome-based care and procurement model of hemophilia management

Hemophilia is a rare bleeding disorder associated with spontaneous and post-traumatic bleeding. Each hemophilia patient requires a personalized approach to episodic or prophylactic treatment, but self-management can be challenging for patients, and avoidable bleeding may occur. Patient-tailored care may provide more effective prevention of bleeding, which in turn, may decrease the likelihood of arthropathy and associated chronic pain, missed time from school or work, and progressive loss of mobility. A strategy is presented here aiming to reduce or eliminate bleeding altogether through a holistic approach based on individual patient characteristics. In an environment of budget constraints, this approach would link procurement to patient outcome, adding incentives for all stakeholders to strive for optimal care and, ultimately, a bleed-free world.

Advances in the clinical management of inhibitors in hemophilia A and B

Inhibitors to factor (F)VIII or FIX are the most serious and challenging complication of hemophilia treatment, increasing morbidity and mortality because bleeds no longer respond to standard clotting factor replacement therapy. For patients with high-titer inhibitors, immune tolerance induction achieved through regular factor exposure is the only proven therapy capable of Inhibitor eradication and is almost always indicated for inhibitors of recent onset. Bypassing therapy is used to treat and prevent bleeding, but neither of the two currently available bypassing agents has the predictable hemostatic efficacy of factor replacement in hemophilia patients without inhibitors. Major research efforts are focused on the development of new, more potent therapies for the management of patients with inhibitors.