Comprehensive analysis and prediction of long-term durability of factor IX activity following etranacogene dezaparvovec gene therapy in the treatment of hemophilia B

Recombinant factor IX Fc for the treatment of hemophilia B

Current hemophilia B treatment guidelines recommend routine prophylaxis with factor IX (FIX) replacement products, tailored to maintain plasma activity at levels that will prevent bleeds. However, plasma FIX activity may not be the primary determinant or best indicator of hemostatic efficacy due to its extravascular distribution. FIX replacement therapy has evolved to include extended half-life (EHL) products that provide effective bleed protection when administered at intervals of 7 days or longer. rFIXFc is a recombinant fusion protein with an extended circulation time. rFIXFc has a biodistribution profile consistent with distribution into extravascular space, where it may support hemostasis at sites of vessel injury independent of circulating plasma activity levels. The safety and efficacy of rFIXFc prophylaxis is well established in adults, adolescents and children including previously untreated patients with hemophilia B, with substantial evidence from clinical trials and real-world clinical practice. This review describes the pharmacokinetic characteristics of rFIXFc, summarizes available safety and efficacy data, and evaluates the use of rFIXFc in special populations. Current hemophilia B treatment challenges, including target FIX plasma levels, perioperative use, and management of patients with comorbidities, are discussed together with the potential role of EHL products in the future treatment landscape of hemophilia B.

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.

The benefits of gene therapy in people with haemophilia

Haemophilia is an inherited bleeding disorder which causes significant morbidity and mortality, especially in the severe form. Prophylaxis with factor replacement has high efficacy in reducing bleeding but is limited by the need for frequent intravenous infusion and fluctuations in haemostasis between doses. Additional prophylaxis therapies are being developed which may overcome some of the current treatment barriers. Gene therapy (GT) is being developed to provide a functional cure such that there is sustained factor expression and minimal to no need for additional haemostatic therapy. There are now two approved gene therapies for haemophilia which may be transformative for many individuals. Benefits of GT should go beyond increasing factor activity and reducing bleeding as persons with haemophilia aim to achieve a 'haemophilia-free mind' and health equity with optimal health and well-being.

Hemophilia and hepatology, back to the future

Years ago, patients with hemophilia were often cared for because of liver issues. The use of hemoderivatives in the 1970s and 1980s, and the natural history of chronic hepatitis B and C, led to a surge of patients with cirrhosis and related complications after two or three decades. It was not until the approval of entecavir and tenofovir (2005-2008) against the B virus, and of direct-acting antiviral agents (2015) against the C virus, that a truly effective treatment became available for liver disease. Since then, patients with hemophilia disappeared from hepatology clinics and wards, apart from specific isolated problems.

Using Real-World Data to Inform Value-Based Contracts for Cell and Gene Therapies in Medicaid

OBJECTIVE

High upfront costs and long-term benefit uncertainties of gene therapies challenge Medicaid budgets, making value-based contracts a potential solution. However, value-based contract design is hindered by cost-offset uncertainty. The aim of this study is to determine actual cost-offsets for valoctocogene roxaparvovec (hemophilia A) and etranacogene dezaparvovec (hemophilia B) from Colorado Medicaid's perspective, defining payback periods and its uncertainty from the perspective of Colorado Medicaid.

METHODS

This cost analysis used 2018-2022 data from the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing to determine standard-of-care costs and employed cost simulation models to estimate the cost of Medicaid if patients switched to gene therapy versus if they did not. Data encompassed medical and pharmacy expenses of Colorado Medicaid enrollees. Identified cohorts were patients aged 18+ with ICD-10-CM codes D66 (hemophilia A) and D67 (hemophilia B). Severe hemophilia A required ≥ 6 claims per year for factor therapies or emicizumab, while moderate/severe hemophilia B necessitated ≥ 4 claims per year for factor therapies. Patients were included in the cohort in the year they first met the criteria and were subsequently retained in the cohort for the duration of the observation period. Standard-of-care included factor VIII replacement therapy/emicizumab for hemophilia A and factor IX replacement therapies for hemophilia B. Simulated patients received valoctocogene roxaparvovec or etranacogene dezaparvovec. Main measures were annual standard-of-care costs, cost offset, and breakeven time when using gene therapies.

RESULTS

Colorado Medicaid's standard-of-care costs for hemophilia A and B were $426,000 [standard deviation (SD) $353,000] and $546,000 (SD $542,000) annually, respectively. Substituting standard-of-care with gene therapy for eligible patients yielded 8-year and 6-year average breakeven times, using real-world costs, compared with 5 years with published economic evaluation costs. Substantial variability in real-world standard-of-care costs resulted in a 48% and 59% probability of breakeven within 10 years for hemophilia A and B, respectively. Altering eligibility criteria significantly influenced breakeven time.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data indicates substantial uncertainty and extended payback periods for gene therapy costs. Utilizing real-world data, Medicaid can negotiate value-based contracts to manage budget fluctuations, share risk with manufacturers, and enhance patient access to innovative treatments.

Liver directed adeno-associated viral vectors to treat metabolic disease

The liver is the metabolic center of the body and an ideal target for gene therapy of inherited metabolic disorders (IMDs). Adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors can deliver transgenes to the liver with high efficiency and specificity and a favorable safety profile. Recombinant AAV vectors contain only the transgene cassette, and their payload is converted to non-integrating circular double-stranded DNA episomes, which can provide stable expression from months to years. Insights from cellular studies and preclinical animal models have provided valuable information about AAV capsid serotypes with a high liver tropism. These vectors have been applied successfully in the clinic, particularly in trials for hemophilia, resulting in the first approved liver-directed gene therapy. Lessons from ongoing clinical trials have identified key factors affecting efficacy and safety that were not readily apparent in animal models. Circumventing pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to the AAV capsid, and mitigating adaptive immune responses to transduced cells are critical to achieving therapeutic benefit. Combining the high efficiency of AAV delivery with genome editing is a promising path to achieve more precise control of gene expression. The primary safety concern for liver gene therapy with AAV continues to be the small risk of tumorigenesis from rare vector integrations. Hepatotoxicity is a key consideration in the safety of neuromuscular gene therapies which are applied at substantially higher doses. The current knowledge base and toolkit for AAV is well developed, and poised to correct some of the most severe IMDs with liver-directed gene therapy.

Gene therapy for haemophilia A and B, from basic principles to clinical implementation: An illustrated review

INTRODUCTION

With recent approval of the first two gene therapies for haemophilia A and B, educational materials about AAV-based gene therapy are needed by the haemophilia community for a better understanding of this novel therapeutic approach and helping healthcare providers and patients making personalized choices amongst an increasing array of therapeutic options.

AIM

To provide a comprehensive summary of the whole process of AAV-based gene therapy from basic principles to clinical implementation through an illustrated review.

METHODS

The authors, with expertise in and knowledge about gene therapy for haemophilia A and B, reviewed relevant articles from PubMed database and translated them into illustrations.

RESULTS

The review is divided into eight illustrated sections providing an overview of gene therapy for haemophilia A and B from haemophilia basics and current treatment landscape, principles of the AAV-based liver-directed gene therapy, through exploring the efficacy and safety results of published phase III clinical trials, current and future challenges, to implementation in clinical practice, including the hub and spoke models and the patient journey.

CONCLUSION

This illustrated review educates healthcare professionals on AAV-based gene therapy for haemophilia A and B enabling them to further educate their peers and their patients.

Perspectives and perception of haemophilia gene therapy by French patients

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

A national survey was initiated by representatives of French patients with haemophilia (AFH) and the French reference centre for haemophilia, in order to appreciate the awareness and knowledge of these patients regarding haemophilia gene therapy (HGT) and understand better their position about this innovative treatment that will soon become available.

RESULTS

Of 143 answers received, 137 could be analysed, representing about 3.5% of patients with severe or moderate haemophilia over 16year-old. They were 80.3% with haemophilia A and 19.7 % with haemophilia B, with a severe form of the disease for 80.3 % of them. Curiosity for HGT was formulated by 64.2% of the participants, 33.6 % being interested by this approach as soon as it will be available and 38.7 % preferring to wait until more patients have been treated. Only 3.6 % of the participants would never consider receiving HGT. The level of awareness and knowledge was estimated to be limited by 39.5 % of the patients. More than 60 % of them declared having never or almost never discussed HGT with the team of their haemophilia centre. Before deciding to get HGT, 54.4 % of the participants considered that it will be very important to compare it with their current treatment and 53.7 % would like to be better informed by their care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the need for training and education for patients, but also for professionals at haemophilia centres, about HGT and the shared decision-making process. Objective, unbiased and transparent information must be available for patients about this very promising therapy which nonetheless carries more uncertainty and unknowns compared to other haemophilia treatments.

Emergent data influences the risk/benefit assessment of hemophilia gene therapy using recombinant adeno-associated virus

After decades of investigation, gene therapy has received regulatory approval to treat hemophilia. However, since gene therapy investigations were initially conceived, other avenues of treatment have revolutionized the care of hemophilia. Emergent data is showing that gene therapy may not be as beneficial as hoped and more toxic than planned. At a minimum, a reassessment of risk/benefit estimate of gene therapy for hemophilia is needed.

Model-Informed Approaches and Innovative Clinical Trial Design for Adeno-Associated Viral Vector-Based Gene Therapy Product Development: A White Paper

The promise of viral vector-based gene therapy (GT) as a transformative paradigm for treating severely debilitating and life-threatening diseases is slowly coming to fruition with the recent approval of several drug products. However, they have a unique mechanism of action often necessitating a tortuous clinical development plan. Expertise in such complex therapeutic modality is still fairly limited in this emerging class of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector-based gene therapies. Because of the irreversible mode of action and incomplete understanding of genotype-phenotype relationship and disease progression in rare diseases careful considerations should be given to GT product's benefit-risk profile. In particular, special attention needs to be paid to safe dose selection, reliable dose exposure response (including clinically relevant endpoints), or creative approaches in study design targeting small patient populations during clinical development. We believe that quantitative tools encompassed within model-informed drug development (MIDD) framework fits quite well in the development of such novel therapies, as they enable us to benefit from the totality of data approach in order to support dose selection as well as optimize clinical trial designs, end point selection, and patient enrichment. In this thought leadership paper, we provide our collective experiences, identify challenges, and suggest areas of improvement in applications of modeling and innovative trial design in development of AAV-based GT products and reflect on the challenges and opportunities for incorporating MIDD tools and more in rational development of these products.

Hemophilia gene therapy: first, do no harm

The introduction of adeno-associated virus-mediated, liver-directed gene therapy into the hemophilia treatment landscape brings not only great promise but also considerable uncertainty to a community that has a history punctuated by the devastating effects of HIV and hepatitis C virus. These infections were introduced into people with hemophilia through the innovation of factor concentrates in the 1970s and 1980s. Concentrates, heralded as a major advance in treatment at the time, brought devastation and death to the community already challenged by the complications of bleeding into joints, vital organs, and the brain. Over the past 5 decades, considerable advances in hemophilia treatment have improved the survival, quality of life, and participation of people with hemophilia, although challenges remain and health equity with their unaffected peers has not yet been achieved. The decision to take a gene therapy product is one in which an informed, holistic, and shared decision-making approach must be employed. Bias on the part of health care professionals and people with hemophilia must be addressed and minimized. Here, we review data leading to the regulatory authorization of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an adeno-associated virus 5 gene therapy, in Europe to treat hemophilia A and etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb in the United States and Europe to treat hemophilia B. We also provide an overview of the decision-making process and recommend steps that should be taken by the hemophilia community to ensure the safety of and optimal outcomes for people with hemophilia who choose to receive a gene therapy product.

Etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B (congenital factor IX deficiency)

INTRODUCTION

Congenital hemophilia B (HB) is an X-linked bleeding disorder resulting in Factor IX (FIX) deficiency and bleeding of variable severity. There is no cure for HB. Typical management consists of prophylactic intravenous (IV) recombinant or plasma-derived FIX infusions. Etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb (Hemgenix, AMT-061) is an adeno-associated virus serotype 5 (AAV5) vector containing a codon-optimized Padua variant of the human F9 gene with a liver-specific promoter. Etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb received FDA approval on 22 November 2022 for the treatment of HB in adult patients who use FIX prophylaxis therapy, have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhage, or have experienced repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes.

AREAS COVERED

This drug profile discusses the safety and efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb in patients with HB.

EXPERT OPINION

Etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb therapy results in stable and sustained expression of near-normal to normal FIX levels in patients with HB regardless of neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 up to a titer of 678. Its use has led to significant reduction in bleeding and FIX prophylaxis. Etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb was well tolerated; however, 17% of patients required corticosteroid therapy for alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation. Etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb therapy marks the beginning of an exciting era in HB treatment and opens questions regarding treatment longevity and long-term safety.

Etranacogene Dezaparvovec: First Approval

Etranacogene dezaparvovec (etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb; Hemgenix^®) is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy being developed by uniQure and CSL Behring for the treatment of haemophilia B. In November 2022, etranacogene dezaparvovec was approved in the USA for the treatment of haemophilia B [congenital factor IX (FIX) deficiency] in adults who are currently using FIX prophylaxis therapy, have current or historical life-threatening haemorrhage or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes. In December 2022, etranacogene dezaparvovec also received positive opinion in the EU for the treatment of haemophilia B. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of etranacogene dezaparvovec leading to this first approval.