Efficacy of rFVIIIFc versus Emicizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hemophilia A without Inhibitors: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of A-LONG and HAVEN Trials

Improved prevention of bleeding episodes with emicizumab in 3 patients with concomitant hemophilia A and von Willebrand disease

The typical phenotype of hemophilia A (HA) is that of frequent bleeding episodes, up to several per month, unless prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII) replacement or alternatives are given. Related bleeding may be heightened in severity or frequency by co-morbid bleeding disorders. Based on the reported prevalence of von Willebrand disease (VWD) of up to 1% of the general population, the co-existence of HA and VWD occurs, but is likely less recognized. Prophylactic FVIII replacement may or may not adequately prevent bleeding in persons with HA and mild VWD, and plasma-derived concentrates containing FVIII and von Willebrand factor (VWF) may be used for more successful bleeding prophylaxis. However, therapy adherence remains problematic for many reasons, one being treatment via intravenous access. Emicizumab is a nonfactor subcutaneous prophylactic therapy for HA that may overcome this concern. We describe three patients, with severe HA and VWD, for whom regular FVIII/VWF prophylaxis was deemed inadequate. FVIII/VWF prophylaxis was replaced with weekly prophylactic injections of the bispecific monoclonal antibody, emicizumab. When the patients were transitioned to emicizumab, all experienced a significant reduction in their annualized bleed rate (ABR). Although the mechanism of action does not directly affect or replace VWF function, emicizumab may be an effective prophylaxis alternative to FVIII/VWF concentrate in patients with concomitant severe HA and VWD.

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.

Non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B

BACKGROUND

Management of congenital hemophilia A and B is by prophylactic or on-demand replacement therapy with clotting factor concentrates. The effects of newer non-clotting factor therapies such as emicizumab, concizumab, marstacimab, and fitusiran compared with existing standards of care are yet to be systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (clinical, economic, patient-reported, and adverse outcomes) of non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeding and bleeding-related complications in people with congenital hemophilia A or B compared with prophylaxis with clotting factor therapies, bypassing agents, placebo, or no prophylaxis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, electronic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. The date of the last search was 16 August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating people with congenital hemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors, who were treated with non-clotting factor therapies to prevent bleeds.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data for the primary outcomes (bleeding rates, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events) and secondary outcomes (joint health, pain scores, and economic outcomes). We assessed the mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) of effect estimates, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs (including 397 males aged 12 to 75 years) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy in people with inhibitors Four trials (189 participants) compared emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab with on-demand therapy in people with inhibitors. Prophylaxis using emicizumab likely reduced annualized bleeding rates (ABR) for all bleeds (MD -22.80, 95% CI -37.39 to -8.21), treated bleeds (MD -20.40, 95% CI -35.19 to -5.61), and annualized spontaneous bleeds (MD -15.50, 95% CI -24.06 to -6.94), but did not significantly reduce annualized joint and target joint bleeding rates (AjBR and AtjBR) (1 trial; 53 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fitusiran also likely reduced ABR for all bleeds (MD -28.80, 95% CI -40.07 to -17.53), treated bleeds (MD -16.80, 95% CI -25.80 to -7.80), joint bleeds (MD -12.50, 95% CI -19.91 to -5.09), and spontaneous bleeds (MD -14.80, 95% CI -24.90 to -4.71; 1 trial; 57 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No evidence was available on the effect of bleed prophylaxis using fitusiran versus on-demand therapy on AtjBR. Concizumab may reduce ABR for all bleeds (MD -12.31, 95% CI -19.17 to -5.45), treated bleeds (MD -10.10, 95% CI -17.74 to -2.46), joint bleeds (MD -9.55, 95% CI -13.55 to -5.55), and spontaneous bleeds (MD -11.96, 95% CI -19.89 to -4.03; 2 trials; 78 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but not target joint bleeds (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.26 to 1.26). Emicizumab prophylaxis resulted in an 11.31-fold increase, fitusiran in a 12.5-fold increase, and concizumab in a 1.59-fold increase in the proportion of participants with no bleeds. HRQoL measured using the Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL) physical and total health scores was improved with emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab prophylaxis (low-certainty evidence). Non-serious adverse events were higher with non-clotting factor therapies versus on-demand therapy, with injection site reactions being the most frequently reported adverse events. Transient antidrug antibodies were reported for fitusiran and concizumab. Prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy in people without inhibitors Two trials (208 participants) compared emicizumab and fitusiran with on-demand therapy in people without inhibitors. One trial assessed two doses of emicizumab (1.5 mg/kg weekly and 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly). Fitusiran 80 mg monthly, emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly all likely resulted in a large reduction in ABR for all bleeds, all treated bleeds, and joint bleeds. AtjBR was not reduced with either of the emicizumab dosing regimens. The effect of fitusiran prophylaxis on target joint bleeds was not assessed. Spontaneous bleeds were likely reduced with fitusiran (MD -20.21, 95% CI -32.12 to -8.30) and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly (MD -15.30, 95% CI -30.46 to -0.14), but not with emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (MD -14.60, 95% CI -29.78 to 0.58). The percentage of participants with zero bleeds was higher following emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (50% versus 0%), emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly (40% versus 0%), and fitusiran prophylaxis (40% versus 5%) compared with on-demand therapy. Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week did not improve Haem-A-QoL physical and total health scores, EQ-5D-5L VAS, or utility index scores (low-certainty evidence) when compared with on-demand therapy at 25 weeks. Emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi-weekly may improve HRQoL measured by the Haem-A-QoL physical health score (MD -15.97, 95% CI -29.14 to -2.80) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (MD 9.15, 95% CI 2.05 to 16.25; 1 trial; 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Fitusiran may result in improved HRQoL shown as a reduction in Haem-A-QoL total score (MD -7.06, 95% CI -11.50 to -2.62) and physical health score (MD -19.75, 95% CI -25.76 to -11.94; 1 trial; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). The risk of serious adverse events in participants without inhibitors also likely did not differ following prophylaxis with either emicizumab or fitusiran versus on-demand therapy (moderate-certainty evidence). Transient antidrug antibodies were reported in 4% (3/80) participants to fitusiran, with no observed effect on antithrombin lowering. A comparison of the different dosing regimens of emicizumab identified no differences in bleeding, safety, or patient-reported outcomes. No case of treatment-related cancer or mortality was reported in any study group. None of the included studies assessed our secondary outcomes of joint health, clinical joint function, and economic outcomes. None of the included studies evaluated marstacimab.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs shows that prophylaxis using non-clotting factor therapies compared with on-demand treatment may reduce bleeding events, increase the percentage of individuals with zero bleeds, increase the incidence of non-serious adverse events, and improve HRQoL. Comparative assessments with other prophylaxis regimens, assessment of long-term joint outcomes, and assessment of economic outcomes will improve evidence-based decision-making for the use of these therapies in bleed prevention.

Emicizumab as a Promising Form of Therapy for Type A Hemophilia - A Review of Current Knowledge from Clinical Trials

Hemophilia is a plasma bleeding disorder characterized by a deficiency of certain blood clotting factors. The most common forms of this disease, i.e., type A and type B, affect approximately 400,000 people worldwide. Without appropriate treatment ensuring the proper coagulation cascade, this disease may lead to serious disability. Minimizing patient discomfort is possible via replacement therapy, consisting of the substitution of a missing coagulation factor via intravenous administration. Frequent medication and the risk related to factor inhibitors are significant disadvantages, necessitating the improvement of current therapies or the development of novel ones. This review examines the humanized bispecific antibody Emicizumab which ensures hemostasis by mimicking the action of the coagulation factor VIII, a deficiency of which causes type A hemophilia. The paper outlines the topic and then summarizes available clinical trials on Emicizumab in type A hemophilia. Several interventional clinical trials have found Emicizumab to be effective in decreasing bleeding episodes and raising patient satisfaction among various hemophilia A populations. Current Emicizumab-related trials are forecast to be completed between 2024 and 2030, and in addition to congenital hemophilia A, the trials cover acquired hemophilia A and patients playing sports. Providing a more comprehensive understanding of Emicizumab may revolutionize the management of hemophilia type A and improve quality of life. Conclusively, Emicizumab is a gentler therapy owing to subcutaneous delivery and fewer injections, which reduces injection-site reactions and makes therapy less burdensome, ultimately decreasing hospital visits and indirect costs.

Clinical efficacy of simoctocog alfa versus extended half-life recombinant FVIII concentrates in hemophilia A patients undergoing personalized prophylaxis using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison method

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to indirectly compare the efficacy of personalized prophylaxis with simoctocog alfa (Nuwiq®) versus three extended half-life (EHL) recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) concentrates.

METHODS

Treatment effects were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons after matching individual patient-level baseline characteristics for simoctocog alfa (pharmacokinetic [PK]-guided personalized prophylaxis) against published aggregate personalized prophylaxis data for efmoroctocog alfa, damoctocog alfa pegol, and rurioctocog alfa pegol.

RESULTS

A higher percentage (p < .001) of patients with zero bleeds was found with simoctocog alfa compared with efmoroctocog alfa (75% vs. 45%), damoctocog alfa pegol (77% vs. 38%), and rurioctocog alfa pegol (target trough level 1%-3%; 78% vs. 42%). Similar efficacy was found comparing simoctocog alfa against rurioctocog alfa pegol 8%-12% (77% vs. 62%). The mean total annualized bleeding rate was lower (p < .001) with simoctocog alfa than damoctocog alfa pegol (1.5 vs. 4.9). Consistent with approved dosing, the mean FVIII weekly dose was higher (p < .001) for simoctocog alfa than efmoroctocog alfa, damoctocog alfa pegol, or rurioctocog alfa pegol 1%-3%, but lower (p < .001) than rurioctocog alfa pegol 8%-12%.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect comparisons demonstrated that PK-guided, personalized prophylaxis with simoctocog alfa can lead to higher zero bleed rates compared with personalized EHL rFVIII concentrate regimens, albeit with higher weekly doses, and a lower percentage of patients treated twice weekly or less.

Efficacy of rFIXFc versus N9-GP Prophylaxis in Patients with Hemophilia B: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of B-LONG and PARADIGM 2 Trials

Purpose

For patients with hemophilia B, extended half-life factor IX (FIX) products are available for prophylaxis and for treating bleeds. Different methods are used to extend the half-lives of recombinant FIX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) and nonacog beta pegol (N9-GP). This affects their biodistribution and plasma FIX levels, although differences do not always correlate with clinical outcomes. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of prophylaxis with rFIXFc and N9-GP was performed, based on licensed dosing in the European Union.

Patients and Methods

Combined rFIXFc data from the weekly and individualized interval prophylaxis arms of the B-LONG clinical trial, and N9-GP data from the 40 IU/kg once-weekly prophylaxis arm of PARADIGM 2 were used in a MAIC. Individual patient data for rFIXFc (n=87) were matched to aggregated data for N9-GP (n=29). Estimated annualized bleeding rates (ABRs) for rFIXFc were recalculated using a Poisson regression model with adjustment for over-dispersion, and compared with ABRs reported for N9-GP, using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

There was no evidence of significant differences in estimated ABRs between prophylaxis with rFIXFc and N9-GP. Analysis of pooled rFIXFc weekly and interval-adjusted dosing compared with N9-GP 40 IU/kg once weekly produced estimated ABRs of 2.59 versus 2.51 (IRR 1.03; 95% CI 0.56-1.89), as well as 1.34 versus 1.22 (IRR 1.10; 95% CI 0.42-2.91) and 1.13 versus 1.29 (IRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.47-1.63) for overall, spontaneous, and traumatic bleeding events, respectively.

Conclusion

The study did not reveal any significant differences in the efficacy of rFIXFc and N9-GP prophylaxis. Given differences in trough levels (rFIXFc dosing was targeted to achieve a trough 1-3 IU/dL above baseline versus a reported estimated N9-GP mean trough of 27.3 IU/dL), interpreting plasma FIX levels as potential surrogate efficacy markers requires consideration of compound-specific pharmacokinetic profiles.

New directions to develop therapies for people with hemophilia

INTRODUCTION

The past few decades have seen a tremendous advancement in the management of hemophilia. Whether it is improved methods to attenuate critical viruses, recombinant bioengineering with decreased immunogenicity, extended half-life replacement therapies to mitigate the burden of repeated infusion treatments, novel nonreplacement products to avoid the drawback of inhibitor development with its attractive subcutaneous administration and then the introduction of gene therapy, the management has trodden a long way.

AREAS COVERED

This expert review describes the progress in the treatment of hemophilia over the years. We discuss, in detail, the past and current therapies, their benefits, drawbacks, along with relevant studies leading to approval, efficacy and safety profile, ongoing trials, and future prospects.

EXPERT OPINION

The technological advances in the treatment of hemophilia with convenient modes of administration and innovative modalities offer a chance for a normal existence of the patients living with this disease. However, it is imperative for clinicians to be aware of the potential adverse effects and the need for further studies to establish causality or chance association of these events with novel agents. Thus, it is crucial for clinicians to engage patients and their families in informed decision-making and tailor individual concerns and necessities.

Cost-effectiveness of recombinant factor VIII Fc versus emicizumab for prophylaxis in adults and adolescents with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK

INTRODUCTION

The economic and clinical burden of haemophilia A is high. Primary prophylaxis with factor VIII replacement therapy is the recognised standard of care, but the emergence of non-factor therapies, such as emicizumab, is extending treatment options for people with haemophilia A.

AIM

There are currently no direct comparisons of efficacy or cost between recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein efmoroctocog alfa (a recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein referred to herein as rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab; therefore, a cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare prophylactic treatment with rFVIIIFc versus emicizumab in patients with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness model was based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison and included male patients, aged ≥12 years, with haemophilia A without inhibitors. The model was designed as a Markov process with a flexible lifelong time horizon, and cost-effectiveness was presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses (including scenario analyses, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis [DSA] and probability sensitivity analysis [PSA]) were performed using the following treatment strategies: individualised prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and prophylaxis with emicizumab administered once weekly (scenario analyses used regimens of once every 2 weeks or once every 4 weeks).

RESULTS

Base-case analysis, DSA and PSA indicated that, compared with emicizumab administered once weekly, rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis was the dominant treatment strategy, with lower costs, a greater number of quality-adjusted life years, and a lower number of bleeds.

CONCLUSIONS

rFVIIIFc has proven efficacy and is cost-effective compared with emicizumab, providing clinicians with a viable treatment option to improve the health outcomes for adults and adolescents with haemophilia A in the UK.

A real-world study comparing pre-post billed annualized bleed rates and total cost of care among non-inhibitor patients with hemophilia A switching from FVIII prophylaxis to emicizumab

OBJECTIVE

Factor VIII (FVIII) replacement and emicizumab have demonstrated efficacy for prevention of bleeds among patients with hemophilia A (PwHA) compared to on-demand (OD) use. Evidence investigating clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of non-inhibitor PwHA switching from prophylaxis with FVIII concentrates to emicizumab has not been well-established within large real-world datasets. This study aimed to investigate billed annualized bleed rates (ABR_b) and total cost of care (TCC) among non-inhibitor PwHA switching from FVIII-prophylaxis to emicizumab-prophylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study was conducted using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus, a US administrative claims database. The date of first claim for emicizumab was defined as the index date. OD patients and inhibitor patients were excluded. Bleeds were identified using a list of 535 diagnosis codes. Bayesian models were developed to estimate the probability ABR_b worsens and TCC increases after switching to emicizumab. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to test statistical significance of changes in ABR_b and TCC after switch.

RESULTS

Among the 121 identified patients, the difference in mean ABR_b between FVIII-prophylaxis (0.68 [SD = 1.28]) and emicizumab (0.55 [SD = 1.48]) was insignificant (p = .142). The mean annual TCC significantly increased for patients switching from FVIII-prophylaxis ($518,151 [SD = $289,934]) to emicizumab ($652,679 [SD = $340,126]; p < .0001). The Bayesian models estimated a 21.0% probability of the ABR_b worsening and a 99.9% probability of increasing TCC after switch.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that in male non-inhibitor PwHA, switching from FVIII prophylaxis to emicizumab incurs substantial cost increase with no significant benefit in ABR_b. This evidence may help guide providers, payers, and patients in shared decision-making conversations around best treatment options.

Expert opinion on current and future prophylaxis therapies aimed at improving protection for people with hemophilia A

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.

Cost-minimization analysis of recombinant factor VIII Fc versus emicizumab for treating patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors in Europe

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A cost-minimization model was developed to compare recombinant factor VIII Fc (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab as prophylaxis for hemophilia A without inhibitors.

METHODS

The model was based on 100 patients from the healthcare payer perspective in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany (5-year time horizon). Costs included: drug acquisition; emicizumab wastage by bodyweight (manufacturer's dosing recommendations); and additional FVIII for breakthrough bleeds. Scenario analyses (UK only): reduced emicizumab dosing frequency; and emicizumab maximum wastage.

RESULTS

Total incremental 5-year savings for rFVIIIFc rather than emicizumab use range from €89,320,131 to €149,990,408 in adolescents/adults (≥12 years) and €173,417,486 to €253,240,465 in children (<12 years). Emicizumab wastage accounts for 6% of its total cost in adolescents/adults and 26% in children. Reducing the emicizumab dosing frequency reduces the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc, but these remain substantial (adolescents/adults, >€92 million; children >€32 million). Maximum emicizumab wastage increases by 86% and 106%, respectively, increasing the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc to €125,352,125 and €105,872,727, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on cost-minimization modeling, rFVIIIFc use for hemophilia A prophylaxis in patients without inhibitors is associated with substantial cost savings in Europe, reflecting not only higher acquisition costs of emicizumab, but also other costs including wastage related to available vial sizes.

An update of the current pharmacotherapeutic armamentarium for hemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

For several decades, we have seen unprecedented advances in novel therapy development for hemophilia A. These advances address the unmet need of replacement therapy, and they include the development of recombinant products with improved pharmacokinetics, subcutaneously administered products, and those with better efficacy and safety profiles in hemophilia A management.

AREAS COVERED

In this update of hemophilia A treatment, the author summarizes data from completed standard half-life FVIII products, extended half-life FVIII products and FVIII mimetic studies. All products have an acceptable safety profile. The standard half-life products, EHL-FVIII products and emicizumab are efficacious in the prevention and treatment of bleeds and for EHL-FVIII in the perisurgical setting.

EXPERT OPINION

Advances in pharmacotherapy for hemophilia A have been characterized by changing care goals from supportive care to eliminating infections, preventing inhibitors, and more recently achieving zero bleeds in many patients. While gene therapy has the potential for functional cure in hemophilia A, it has many limitations which need to be addressed. Therefore, pharmacotherapy is likely to remain the mainstay in the management of hemophilia A and promises to get better with currently available therapies. Evolving factor and non-factor replacement therapies may also improve current unmet needs in hemophilia A management.