Clotting factor concentrates for preventing bleeding and bleeding-related complications in previously treated individuals with haemophilia A or B

Budget impact and cost-utility analysis of prophylactic emicizumab versus on-demand bypassing agents for adolescent severe haemophilia A patients with inhibitors in India

Introduction

Severe Haemophilia A patients with inhibitors are currently being treated with bypassing agents like activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC) and recombinant factor VIIa. Emicizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, introduced to reduce the bleeding events, improve treatment adherence, and quality of life. However, cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability of the intervention is not studied in a low middle income setting like India.

Aim

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Emicizumab compared to traditional bypassing agents in the treatment of severe haemophilia A patients with inhibitors in India. Secondary objective was to analyze the budgetary impact of introducing Emicizumab for this patient population from the perspective of public health system in India.

Methods

Markov model was created to compare the prophylactic emicizumab therapy against bypassing agents for a hypothetical cohort of 10-year-old adolescents in India. The time horizon was 10 years and model built based on health system perspective. Cost utility was expressed as costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. All costs were expressed as 2021 US dollars. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to check the robustness of the estimates.

Results

Prophylactic emicizumab was a cost saving intervention with negative Incremental Cost Utility Ratio (ICUR) against recombinant factor VIIa of -853,573 USD (INR -63,109,773), and negative ICUR of -211,675 USD (INR -15,650,403) against APCC. The estimated total budget for treating all the severe Haemophilia A patients with inhibitors in India was USD 59,042,000 (INR 4,365,329,312) for 10 years' time horizon (per patient cost of USD 295,210 [INR 21,826,646.56]).

Conclusion

Prophylactic emicizumab therapy is a cost saving intervention when compared to both the bypassing agents as it is less costly and more effective for severe Haemophilia A patients with inhibitors in India.

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.

Estimating the impact of improved management of haemophilia a on clinical outcomes and healthcare utilisation and costs

OBJECTIVE

Haemophilia A (HA) is associated with high clinical and healthcare burden. We developed an Excel-based model comparing current practice to improved management in severe HA patients currently managed on demand (OD). Outcomes included short- and long-term bleed events. Expected annual bleeds were estimated based on locally-derived OD annualised bleed rate (ABR), adjusted by relative prophylaxis-related ABRs (published literature). The objective of our study was to explore the impact of improving HA prophylaxis in target countries with limited published data (Algeria, Argentina, Chile, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan and Thailand). Bleed-related healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs were estimated as a function of bleed type, with inputs obtained from local expert estimates. Clotting factor concentrates (CFC) consumption related to treatment and prophylaxis was estimated based on locally relevant dosing. CFC costs were not included.

RESULTS

When 20% of OD patients were switched to prophylaxis, projected reduction in bleeds was estimated between 3% (Taiwan) through 14% (Algeria and India); projected reductions in hospitalisations ranged from 3% (Taiwan) through 15% (India). Projected HCRU-related annual cost savings were estimated at USD 0.45 m (Algeria), 0.77 m (Argentina), 0.28 m (Chile), 0.13 m (India), 0.29 m (Malaysia), 2.79 m (Mexico), 0.15 m (Taiwan) and 0.78 m (Thailand). Net change in annual CFC consumption ranged from a 0.05% reduction (Thailand) to an overall 5.4% increase (Algeria). Our model provides a flexible framework to estimate the clinical and cost offsets of improved prophylaxis. Modest increase in CFC consumption may be an acceptable offset for improvements in health and healthcare capacity in resource constrained economies.

Management of abdominal pseudotumours in haemophilia: a systematic review

AIM

Haemophilic pseudotumours are complications in patients with haemophilia A or B and result from locally repetitive bleeding, mainly in the musculoskeletal system. Abdominal haemophilic pseudotumours are exceptionally rare but may cause severe complications. This systematic review aimed to evaluate therapy strategies for symptomatic abdominal haemophilic pseudotumours.

METHODS

We systematically searched three databases (Medline [PubMed], Web of Science and EMBASE) for publications published between 1995 and 2023. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data and performed a quality assessment using the JBI critical appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

From a total of 1199 articles, 39 articles describing 41 cases were included for final analysis. Conservative or interventional treatment was performed in 12 cases. In eight cases, a step-up to surgical therapy after interventional treatment was indicated. Primary surgical therapy was performed in 21 cases. Failure to cure was documented in 50% (n = 6) of patients treated in the first group, with a mortality rate of 16.6% (n = 2). Interventional therapy with a step-up to surgery showed no morbidity or mortality. Primary surgical resection documented favourable results in 66.6% (n = 14), with failure to cure in 9.5% (n = 2) and a mortality rate of 14.3% (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

Primary surgical resection can be a first-line therapy for symptomatic, abdominal haemophilic pseudotumours, whereas preoperative embolisation could be used as a bridging therapy before surgery, especially in emergency settings. Diagnostic biopsy and percutaneous drainage should be avoided to prevent complications.

Efficacy/effectiveness and safety of emicizumab prophylaxis of people with hemophilia A: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emicizumab is a monoclonal antibody approved for prophylaxis against bleeds for people with hemophilia A (PwHA). A systematic review was conducted evaluating the efficacy/effectiveness and the safety of emicizumab as prophylaxis for PwHA compared to prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII) or bypassing agents (BPA), respectively in patients without and with inhibitors.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Database-directed search strategies were performed in Aug/26/2022 and updated in Mar/16/2023. Studies evaluating the prophylaxis with emicizumab versus prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA in PwHA without or with inhibitors, respectively, were selected by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Annualized bleeding rates for total treated bleeding events (ABR-all) were evaluated by meta-analysis. The quality of studies and certainty of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included. The standard mean differences for ABR-all were -0.6 (95%CI -1.0 to -0.2, p-value = 0.0002), among PwHA without inhibitors, and -1.7 (95%CI -2.4 to -0.9, p-value <0.00001), among PwHA with inhibitors. However, there was moderate heterogeneity in both meta-analyses. The most frequent adverse event was injection site reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Emicizumab prophylaxis was superior in reducing the ABR-all when compared with prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA.

Non‐clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with hemophilia

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

This review aims 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 hemophilia A or B compared to prophylaxis with clotting factor therapies, bypassing agents, placebo or no prophylaxis.