Pharmacokinetics and Associated Efficacy of Emicizumab in Humans: A Systematic Review

Reduced doses of emicizumab achieve good efficacy: Results from a national-wide multicentre real-world study in China

INTRODUCTION

Reduced doses of emicizumab improve the affordability among patients in developing countries. However, the relationship between variant dose selection and efficacy in the real world of China is still unclear.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of emicizumab especially in those on reduced dose regimens in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We carried out a multicentre study from 28 hospitals between June 2019 and June 2023 in China and retrospectively analysed the characteristics including demographics, diagnosis, treatment, bleeding episodes, and surgical procedures.

RESULTS

In total, 127 patients with haemophilia A, including 42 with inhibitors, were followed for a median duration of 16.0 (IQR: 9.0-30.0) months. Median age at emicizumab initiation was 2.0 (IQR: 1.0-4.0) years. Median (IQR) consumption for loading and maintenance was 12.0 (8.0-12.0) and 4.2 (3.0-6.0) mg/kg/4 weeks, respectively. While on emicizumab, 67 (52.8%) patients had no bleeds, whereas 60 (47.2%) patients had any bleeds, including 26 with treated bleeds. Compared to previous treatments, patients on emicizumab had significantly decreased annualized bleeding rate, annualized joint bleeding rate, target joints and intracerebral haemorrhage. Different dosages had similar efficacy except the proportion of patients with treated spontaneous bleeds and target joints. Adverse events were reported in 12 (9.4%) patients. Postoperative excessive bleeding occurred following two of nine procedures.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study describing patients with HA receiving emicizumab prophylaxis on variant dose regimens in China. We confirmed that nonstandard dose is efficacious and can be considered where full-dose emicizumab is ill affordable.

Title and abstract screening for literature reviews using large language models: an exploratory study in the biomedical domain

BACKGROUND

Systematically screening published literature to determine the relevant publications to synthesize in a review is a time-consuming and difficult task. Large language models (LLMs) are an emerging technology with promising capabilities for the automation of language-related tasks that may be useful for such a purpose.

METHODS

LLMs were used as part of an automated system to evaluate the relevance of publications to a certain topic based on defined criteria and based on the title and abstract of each publication. A Python script was created to generate structured prompts consisting of text strings for instruction, title, abstract, and relevant criteria to be provided to an LLM. The relevance of a publication was evaluated by the LLM on a Likert scale (low relevance to high relevance). By specifying a threshold, different classifiers for inclusion/exclusion of publications could then be defined. The approach was used with four different openly available LLMs on ten published data sets of biomedical literature reviews and on a newly human-created data set for a hypothetical new systematic literature review.

RESULTS

The performance of the classifiers varied depending on the LLM being used and on the data set analyzed. Regarding sensitivity/specificity, the classifiers yielded 94.48%/31.78% for the FlanT5 model, 97.58%/19.12% for the OpenHermes-NeuralChat model, 81.93%/75.19% for the Mixtral model and 97.58%/38.34% for the Platypus 2 model on the ten published data sets. The same classifiers yielded 100% sensitivity at a specificity of 12.58%, 4.54%, 62.47%, and 24.74% on the newly created data set. Changing the standard settings of the approach (minor adaption of instruction prompt and/or changing the range of the Likert scale from 1-5 to 1-10) had a considerable impact on the performance.

CONCLUSIONS

LLMs can be used to evaluate the relevance of scientific publications to a certain review topic and classifiers based on such an approach show some promising results. To date, little is known about how well such systems would perform if used prospectively when conducting systematic literature reviews and what further implications this might have. However, it is likely that in the future researchers will increasingly use LLMs for evaluating and classifying scientific publications.

Saudi expert consensus on acquired hemophilia A diagnosis and management

Objectives

Acquired hemophilia affects approximately one in 1 million people. Timely diagnosis is key to appropriate disease management and the prevention of life-threatening complications. Patients with this condition may initially be seen by inexperienced physicians and remain underdiagnosed for several years. This consensus statement is aimed at providing guidelines for all practitioners in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to diagnose and manage acquired hemophilia A.

Methods

This consensus statement reflects the opinions drafted by a group of hematology specialists, who used an explicit systematic process to identify areas of agreement and disagreement.

Results

This consensus statement provides a guide for all practitioners in the KSA regarding the diagnosis of clinical presentation, relevance, characteristics of bleeding symptoms, and case management; it additionally provides guidance for non-specialists. All management aspects, including diagnosis and treatment modalities, are discussed.

Conclusions

Patients with acquired hemophilia may initially be seen by physicians who lack appropriate expertise in diagnosing and managing this condition. This consensus statement from the premier experts on the disease in the KSA provides details for diagnosing and managing acquired hemophilia.

Benefits and risks of non-factor therapies: Redefining haemophilia treatment goals in the era of new technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades progress in haemophilia treatment has been remarkable and prophylaxis with clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia A and B has been established as the standard of care in individuals with haemophilia and a severe bleeding phenotype. Besides clotting factor products with prolonged half-life non-factor therapies were developed which enable prophylaxis via subcutaneous administration. Factor VIIIa mimetics like emicizumab facilitate the coagulation pathway and are used in routine clinical practice for indivdiduals with haemophilia A. Rebalancing therapeutic agents like fitusiran, concizumab, marstacimab and serpin PC block the anticoagulant pathway and clinical trials using these products in individuals with haemophilia A and B are ongoing.

AIM AND METHODS

A narrative review to asess the benefits and risks of non-factor therapies taking in to account re-defined haemophilia treatment goals.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis for prevention of bleeds using non-factor products by subcutaneous administration is effective and results in reductions of bleeding episodes in individuals with haemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors. The treatment with emicizumab showed tolerable safety both in clinical trials and long-term real-world observations with few thrombotic events. In some clinical trials with rebalancing therapies (fitusiran and concizumab) thrombotic events occurred. Monitoring of the haemostatic function of novel therapies especially with concomitant haemostatic treatment is not yet established.

CONCLUSION

With the advent of novel therapeutic agents including factor concentrates with ultra-long half-life and improved FVIIIa mimetics aimed at raising the bar of protection into the non-hemophilic range redefinition of haemophilia treatment goals is eagerly needed.

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.

[Efficacy and safety of prophylaxis with emicizumab in hemophilia A: A study of 13 patients]

INTRODUCTION

Emicizumab is the first non-replacement therapy for prophylaxis in severe hemophilia A.

AIMS

The principal aim of this study is to describe the results of our patients in prophylaxis with emicizumab, according to the usual clinical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Follow-up of 13 patients from the start of prophylaxis, recording of bleeding, surgeries, adverse reactions and the need or not for factor therapy. Plasma levels were measured at follow-up visits, the technique was coagulative in one stage, modified by 1:20 dilution.

RESULTS

Median plasma levels were 52.2mg [30.7-71.9]. Prophylaxis was safe and effective; only one spontaneous haemorrhage was recorded over time and no treatment was required. There were no thromboembolic events or serious hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions. The incidence of injection site reactions was 8%. Perioperative management in minor interventions was carried out without adjuvant factorial therapy, in 2 major surgeries a dose of plasmatic FVIII concentrate was required in the patient with hemophilia A without inhibitor and FVII in the patient with inhibitor, and it was sufficient to stop the bleeding.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated emicizumab pharmacokinetics and its half life ensure optimal levels with prophylaxis treatment at doses established in the technical data sheet.

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.

Clinical pharmacology of emicizumab for the treatment of hemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

Emicizumab is a humanized bispecific antibody approved for the routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia A (PwHA) regardless of the presence of factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors. It mimics the cofactor function of missing activated FVIII by bridging activated factor IX and factor X, thereby restoring hemostasis.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the clinical pharmacology of emicizumab and the translation of its pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) to clinical efficacy and safety. The PK of emicizumab is linear, with an approximately 1-month half-life. Once-weekly to every-4-week subcutaneous (SC) administrations maintain effective trough concentrations throughout the dosing intervals, associated with a coagulation potential analogous to that in patients with mild hemophilia A. In combination with activated prothrombin complex concentrate, and to a lesser extent with recombinant activated factor VII, emicizumab exerts a synergistic effect, whereas combination with FVIII may result in a non-additive coagulation potential at normal FVIII activity.

EXPERT OPINION

The translation of emicizumab PK/PD into clinical effects was demonstrated in several phase III studies, which showed remarkable bleed control and a favorable safety profile in PwHA. These emicizumab attributes, together with the convenience of use (infrequent SC injections), offer a novel paradigm for the management of PwHA.

DosEmi study protocol: a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, crossover study to evaluate non-inferiority of pharmacokinetic-guided reduced dosing compared with conventional dosing of emicizumab in people with haemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

Emicizumab effectively prevents bleeding in people with haemophilia A (PwHA), but is a burden for national healthcare budgets and consequently may limit access. According to the drug label, dosing of emicizumab is based on body weight with fixed intervals of 7, 14 or 28 days, which leads to mean plasma concentrations of 55 µg/mL (SD 15 µg/mL). However, a moderate variability of concentrations and a minimal effective concentration of 30 µg/mL have been suggested in studies. Therefore, a dose of emicizumab that targets a trough concentration of 30 µg/mL is hypothesised to be equally effective as conventional dosing in the prevention of bleeding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We designed a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, crossover study to evaluate non-inferiority of bleed control of ≥6 months on conventional dosing in comparison to ≥6 months on dose intervention. This dose intervention consists of reducing the dose of emicizumab to target a trough concentrations of 30 µg/mL using individual pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. Ninety-five PwHA aged >1 years who received conventional dosing of emicizumab for ≥12 months with good bleeding control during the last 6 months will be recruited from all Dutch haemophilia treatment centres. The study is powered to detect a clinically relevant decrease (risk difference) of 15% in the proportion of patients without treated bleeds during follow-up. Secondary endpoints are spontaneous joint or muscle bleeds, and annualised treated bleeding rates (using negative binomial regression). Cost-effectivity between conventional dosing and individualised PK-guided dosing of emicizumab will be compared.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The DosEmi study was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee NedMec of the University Medical Center of Utrecht, The Netherlands. Study results will be communicated through publications in international scientific journals and presentations at (inter)national conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EUCTR2021-004039-10-NL at https://trialsearch.who.int.

PROTOCOL VERSION

V.4.1 on 28 October 2022 (DosEmi protocol_V4.1; NL81112.041.22).

Between Scylla and Charybdis: thrombosis in children with hemophilia

Thromboembolism is an infrequent complication in children with hemophilia that has been traditionally associated with the presence of a central venous access device. Novel rebalancing agents have shown promising results as prophylactic therapies to minimize the risk of bleeding but both thromboembolism and thrombotic microangiopathy have been reported as complications. The management of thrombosis in children with hemophilia is particularly challenging given the inherent risk of bleeding. In this paper, we present clinical vignettes to review the literature, highlight challenges, and describe our approach to managing thromboembolism in children with hemophilia.

A real-world evidence analysis of the impact of switching from factor VIII to emicizumab prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors

BACKGROUND

This study retrospectively compared annualized billed bleed rates (ABR_b) in people with hemophilia A (PwHA) without inhibitors who switched from factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis to emicizumab.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A real-world comparison study was performed on the effect of switching from FVIII to emicizumab prophylaxis in male, non-inhibitor patients on ABR_b using an all-payer claims database (APCD) dataset from 1 January 2014, to 31 March 2021. The identification period was from 1 November 2017, to 30 September 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-one patients were included with a total of 82 and 45 bleeds in the pre- and post-switch periods, respectively. The average follow-up period pre-switch was 978.37 days (SD 555.03), whereas the average follow-up period post-switch was 522.26 days (SD 191.36). No significant differences in mean ABR_b were observed pre-/post-switch (0.25 and 0.20, respectively; P = 0.4456).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate no significant reduction in ABR_b, suggesting that switching from FVIII to emicizumab may not deliver incremental benefits to PwHA receiving prophylactic care.

From a bispecific monoclonal antibody to gene therapy: A new era in the treatment of hemophilia A

The treatment of hemophilia A has progressed amazingly in recent years. Emicizumab, a bispecific-humanized monoclonal antibody, is able to improve coagulation by bridging activated factor IX and factor X. Emicizumab is administered subcutaneously and much less often compared to factor VIII products. It has low immunogenicity, does not require dose adjustment, and can be administered regardless of the presence of factor VIII inhibitors. Thrombin generation assays but not factor VIII activity are indicated to guide and monitor the treatment. Emicizumab has enabled the conversion of patients with severe forms into patients with milder forms of hemophilia A. It has reduced the number of bleeding episodes compared to both on-demand and prophylactic substitution therapy and has an excellent safety profile. Gene therapy can elevate factor VIII plasma levels for many years after a single treatment course, could offer long-term protection from bleeding episodes, and minimize or eliminate the need for substitutive treatment with factor VIII concentrates. Gene therapy can provoke an immune response, manifested by an increase in common liver enzymes, that require immunotherapy. Long term monitoring is necessary to identify possible adverse effects. Future objectives are: the development of an ideal viral vector, the possibility of its re-administration, the use of gene therapy in hemophiliac children, and determining whether it can be successfully used to induce immune tolerance to factor VIII ceteri paribus. The future will determine the place of each type of treatment and group of patients for which it is indicated.

Management of children with hemophilia A on emicizumab who need surgery

The introduction of emicizumab into the treatment regime of persons with hemophilia A has dramatically reduced frequency of bleeding in patients with and without inhibitors. However, in children with Hemophilia A (CwHA) who require surgical or other invasive procedures, additional treatment with factor replacement or other hemostatic agents may still be needed to prevent intraoperative or postoperative bleeding. This review will look at the reported outcomes in CwHA on emicizumab who have had surgery and propose recommendations for the best perioperative management of major and minor procedures.

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.

Quantification of emicizumab by mass spectrometry in plasma of people with hemophilia A: A method validation study

Background

Emicizumab is a new treatment option for people with hemophilia A. Emicizumab was approved with a body-weight-based dosage regimen, without laboratory monitoring requirements. Guidelines, however, recommend measuring emicizumab concentrations when the presence of antidrug antibodies is suspected. Furthermore, drug monitoring can be useful in clinical decision making, in adherence checking, and for research purposes. Therefore, we developed a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for quantifying emicizumab. We performed a validation study on this LC-MS/MS method quantifying emicizumab in the plasma of people with hemophilia A.

Methods

Sample preparation for LC-MS/MS analysis included ammonium sulfate protein precipitation and trypsin digestion. A signature peptide of emicizumab and a matching stable isotope-labeled internal standard were used to quantify emicizumab by LC-MS/MS analysis. Validation was performed in accordance with the "Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation" of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The LC-MS/MS method was cross validated against a modified and calibrated (r 2 Diagnostics) one-stage clotting assay (OSA).

Conclusions

The LC-MS/MS method demonstrated linearity over a wide range of emicizumab concentrations, far exceeding the concentrations observed in people with hemophilia A. Precision and accuracy were excellent, and all other validation parameters were also within the acceptance EMA criteria. Cross validation showed that the LC-MS/MS method and the OSA-based method can be used interchangeably for drug monitoring of emicizumab without the application of a correction factor.

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

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.