Pharmacokinetic implications of dosing emicizumab based on vial size: A simulation study

Emicizumab prophylaxis for people with hemophilia A: Waste estimation and the Brazilian perspective

Costs of hemophilia A treatment are increasing. Waste of clotting products should be avoided. To estimate the first-year waste of emicizumab prophylaxis for people with hemophilia A and inhibitors (PwHAi) who failed immune tolerance induction (ITI), in Brazil. We evaluated the manufacturer and the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MoH) protocol-recommended regimens in a budget impact model. The loading dose consisted of 3.0 mg/kg/Q1W for 4 weeks, for both recommendations. The manufacturer maintenance regimens comprised 1.5 mg/kg/Q1W, 3.0 mg/kg/Q2W, and 6.0 mg/kg/Q4W. The MoH protocol maintenance regimen encompassed a hybrid Q1W/Q2W administration, depending on the body weight. The Q4W regimen was not recommended by the MoH protocol. Analyses were performed to estimate waste given its expense based on the World Health Organization body weight range (percentiles [P] 15, 50, and 85). The first-year emicizumab waste was estimated individually and for the disclosed PwHAi who failed ITI (n = 114). The highest emicizumab waste was estimated for the lowest body weights and the Q1W regimen. The Q4W regimen resulted in the lowest emicizumab waste, followed by the MoH protocol regimen. The total reconstituted costs estimated for the PwHAi who failed ITI according to the hybrid MoH protocol ranged from US$32,858,777 (P15) to US$47,186,858 (P85), with emicizumab waste ranging from 7.9 % (US$2,594,515) to 3.7 % (US$1,738,750), respectively. Lost resources due to current protocols for emicizumab prophylaxis for PwHAi who failed ITI in Brazil are considerable. Waste was more pronounced due to lower body weight and shorter administration intervals.

Dilemmas on emicizumab in children with haemophilia A: A survey of strategies from PedNet centres

INTRODUCTION

Haemophilia A care has changed with the introduction of emicizumab. Experience on the youngest children is still scarce and clinical practice varies between haemophilia treatment centres.

AIM

We aimed to assess the current clinical practice on emicizumab prophylaxis within PedNet, a collaborative research platform for paediatricians treating children with haemophilia.

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to all PedNet members (n = 32) between October 2022 and February 2023. The survey included questions on the availability of emicizumab, on the practice of initiating prophylaxis in previously untreated or minimally treated patients (PUPs or MTPs) and emicizumab use in patients with or without inhibitors.

RESULTS

All but four centres (28/32; 88%) responded. Emicizumab was available in clinical practice in 25/28 centres (89%), and in 3/28 for selected patients only (e.g. with inhibitors). Emicizumab was the preferred choice for prophylaxis in PUPs or MTPs in 20/25 centres; most (85%) started emicizumab prophylaxis before 1 year of age (30% before 6 months of age) and without concomitant FVIII (16/20; 80%). After the loading dose, 13/28 centres administered the recommended dosing, while the others adjusted the interval of injections to give whole vials. In inhibitor patients, the use of emicizumab during ITI was common, with low-dose ITI being the preferred protocol.

CONCLUSION

Most centres choose to initiate prophylaxis with emicizumab before 12 months of age and without concomitant FVIII. In inhibitor patients, ITI is mostly given in addition to emicizumab, but there was no common practice on how to proceed after successful ITI.

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.

The efficacy of the entire-vial dosing of emicizumab: Real-world evidence on plasma concentrations, bleeds, and drug waste

Background

Prophylaxis with emicizumab provides effective bleeding protection in persons with hemophilia A (PwHA) but pressures healthcare budgets. The body weight-adjusted dosing at 7-, 14-, or 28-day intervals, according to the label, often mismatches the vial content. Entire-vial dosing resulted in therapeutic concentrations according to pharmacokinetic simulations and was introduced to avoid waste.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of entire-vial dosing of emicizumab by investigating real-world evidence of plasma concentrations, bleeds, and drug waste.

Methods

This is a single-center, observational study with PwHA receiving emicizumab in mg/kg doses according to label but dosing interval extrapolated to the nearest vial size. Patient characteristics and bleeds were compared 1 year before starting emicizumab and during emicizumab until January 2022. Concentrations were assessed at weeks 4, 12, and annually. The mean (95% CI) annualized bleed rates were compared by using negative binomial regression. Drug waste between label-based dosing and entire-vial dosing was compared.

Results

A total of 112 individuals (94% severe phenotype and 9% positive FVIII inhibitors) were followed for a median of 56 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 52-68) before and 51 weeks (IQR 29-75) after starting emicizumab. The median emicizumab dose was 5.9 (IQR 5.5-6.2) mg/kg/4 wk with median concentrations of 63 (IQR 51-80) μg/mL. The annualized bleed rate of treated bleeds before emicizumab was 3.6 (95% CI 2.9-4.4) and was 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.1) during emicizumab (P < .001). Drug waste was reduced by 9%.

Conclusion

The entire-vial dosing of emicizumab is an attractive treatment option for PwHA leading to therapeutic plasma concentrations, good bleeding control, and drug waste avoidance.

Optimizing maintenance dosing of emicizumab-kxwh as prophylaxis in hemophilia A: Dosing to product labeling while minimizing drug waste

BACKGROUND: The introduction of the bispecific antibody emicizumab-kxwh has driven a paradigm shift in the management of patients with hemophilia A. Emicizumab-kxwh is gradually replacing factor VIII as the treatment of choice for prophylaxis. The requirement to dose emicizumab-kxwh by weight can drive waste when the appropriate combination of various strengths of single-use vials is not considered, whereas inappropriate rounding to full vials can lead to significantly subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic doses. OBJECTIVE: To quantify waste reduction and impact to savings when a clinical program designed to optimize the emicizumab-kxwh dose, frequency, and vial combination is applied at the dispensing specialty pharmacy level. METHODS: The electronic medical records of 360 patients receiving emicizumab-kxwh as maintenance therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included in the sample if they were male, were aged 18 to 89 years, were inhibitor negative, and had at least 1 new or renewal maintenance prescription in 2021. Three hundred seventy discrete regimens were identified as evaluated per the Regimen Optimization Algorithm - emicizumab-kxwh and included in the final sample. Data collected for each regimen included patient weight, emicizumab-kxwh dose and interval originally prescribed, every 7-day equivalent regimen (to the hundredth of a milligram), vial combination originally ordered, and resulting waste generated. For those regimens failing the algorithm, additional review of pharmacist follow-up and prescriber engagement was performed. When the prescriber adopted a pharmacist recommendation to adjust dose, frequency of administration and/or vial combination, impact to cost was calculated (Medicare Part B 2022 average sale price). RESULTS: 48% (176/370) of reviewed regimens failed specialty pharmacist review because they drove a potentially subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic dose and/or resulted in the use of partial vials that required that the patient discard all emicizumab-kxwh over the prescribed amount with each dose. 112 (64%) of these failed regimens met full criteria for prescriber engagement to recommend a regimen adjustment to dose, frequency of administration, and/or vial combination. These recommendations were adopted in 43% of cases (48/112), resulting in a cumulative savings of 600 mg per dose while also avoiding significant subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic dosing. When factoring in the frequency of administration at the patient level, cumulative annual savings to payers across these 48 accepted recommendations was $1,793,549.76. CONCLUSIONS: These data illustrate that the application of an evidence-based Regimen Optimization Algorithm at the dispensing specialty pharmacy level can reduce waste and drive payer savings while avoiding significant subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic dosing. DISCLOSURES: Accredo, Inc, a specialty pharmacy dispensing emicizumab-kxwh to patients with hemophilia A, employs the authors. Accredo, Inc, is a subsidiary of EverNorth, which also includes Express Scripts, a PBM that adjudicates a portion of emicizumab-kxwh claims.

Emicizumab state-of-the-art update

Introduction

Emicizumab is a bispecific monoclonal antibody developed to address the unmet needs of clotting factor replacement therapy and has become the benchmark for optimal prophylaxis in managing patients with haemophilia A with inhibitors. We describe the emicizumab rollout and pharmacokinetic strategies and their use in paediatric patients.

Methods

The evolving real‐world experience in using emicizumab has confirmed its safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetic profile in paediatric, adolescent and adult patients receiving emicizumab at various prophylactic dosing regimens. The emicizumab current global rollout includes over 100 countries with 29 low to middle‐income countries accessing emicizumab through the World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH) Humanitarian Aid Program. The diversity of emicizumab dosing and pharmacokinetic tools such as the Calibra® and the WAPPS‐Hemo platforms make it possible to achieve prophylaxis goals in line with the WFH Haemophilia treatment guidelines recommendations, with minimal drug wastage. The emerging experience from long term clinical trials and long‐term real‐world follow‐up confirm the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic profile of emicizumab in paediatric haemophilia A patients. A few questions, including inhibitor recurrence, concurrent use of emicizumab with various replacement therapies and inhibitor eradication, are being addressed through multiple ongoing clinical studies.

Conclusion

The current global rollout of emicizumab is remarkable, and versatile dosing regimens and evolving pharmacokinetic tools such as the Calibra® and WAPPS‐Hemo platforms make it a treatment choice available also for pharmacokinetic guided personalised treatment. Data from paediatric studies are consistent with those seen in adolescent and adult Haemophilia A.

Prophylaxis in children with haemophilia in an evolving treatment landscape

INTRODUCTION

For children with haemophilia, early initiation of prophylaxis is crucial to prevent life-threatening bleeds and maintain joint health throughout life. Options for prophylaxis have recently increased from replacement therapy with standard or extended half-life coagulation factor products to include other haemostasis products, such as the non-replacement therapy emicizumab.

AIM

To review key factors that determine the choice of prophylaxis in young children.

METHODS

Key clinical questions on the implementation of prophylaxis for haemophilia in children were identified and PubMed was searched for evidence supporting guidance on the implementation of prophylaxis.

RESULTS

The results of the literature search and the practical experience of the authors were used to build consensus on when to start prophylaxis, the pros and cons of the products available to guide the choice of product, and practical aspects of starting prophylaxis to guide the choice of regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

In this era of increasing therapeutic choices, available information about the range of treatment options must be considered when initiating prophylaxis in young children. Parents or care givers must be sufficiently informed to allow informed shared decision making. Although plentiful data and clinical experience have been gathered on prophylaxis with clotting factor replacement therapy, its use in young children brings practical challenges, such as the need for intravenous administration. In contrast, our relatively brief experience and limited data with subcutaneously administered non-replacement therapy (i.e., emicizumab) in this patient group imply that starting emicizumab prophylaxis in young children requires careful consideration, despite the more convenient route of administration.