Cost-utility analysis of life-long prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIIIFc vs recombinant factor VIII for the management of severe hemophilia A in Sweden

Cost-effectiveness of ambroxol in the treatment of Gaucher disease type 2

Objective

Our aim was to compare the costs and efficacy of ambroxol in combination with imiglucerase with the costs and efficacy of imiglucerase only in the treatment of Gaucher disease type 2 (GD2) in the socio-economic settings of the Republic of Serbia, an upper-middle-income European economy.

Methods

The perspective of the Serbian Republic Health Insurance Fund was chosen for this study, and the time horizon was 6 years. The main outcomes of the study were quality-adjusted life years gained with ambroxol + imiglucerase and comparator, and direct costs of treatment. The study was conducted through the generation and simulation of the Markov chain model. The model results were obtained after Monte Carlo microsimulation of a sample with 1,000 virtual patients.

Results

Treatment with ambroxol in combination with imiglucerase was cost-effective when compared with imiglucerase only and was associated with positive values of net monetary benefit regardless of the onset of the disease. Such beneficial result for ambroxol and imiglucerase combination is primarily driven by the low cost of ambroxol and its considerable clinical effectiveness in slowing the progression of neural complications of GD2.

Conclusion

If ambroxol and imiglucerase are used in combination for the treatment of GD2, it is more cost-effective than using imiglucerase alone.

Are We Capturing the Socioeconomic Burden of Rare Genetic Disease? A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations and Cost-of-Illness Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rare diseases have a significant impact on patients, families, the health system, and society. Measuring the socioeconomic burden is crucial to valuing interventions for rare diseases. Healthcare system costs are significant, but so are costs to other government sectors, patients, families, and society. To understand the breadth of costs captured in rare disease studies, we examined the cost categories and elements of socioeconomic burden captured in published studies.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using five electronic databases to identify English language economic evaluations and cost-of-illness studies of interventions for rare diseases (2011-21). We mapped costs using a previously developed evidence-informed framework of socioeconomic burden costs for rare disease.

RESULTS

Of 4890 studies identified, 48 economic evaluations and 22 cost-of-illness studies were included. While 18/22 cost-of-illness studies utilized a societal perspective, only 7/48 economic evaluations incorporated societal costs. Most reported cost categories related to medical costs, with medication and hospitalizations being the most common elements for both study designs. Costs borne by patients, families, and society were reported less among economic evaluations than cost-of-illness studies. These included: productivity (10% vs 77%), travel/accommodation (6% vs 68%), government benefits (4% vs 18%), and family impacts (0% vs 50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to cost-of-illness analyses, most of the included economic evaluations did not account for the hidden burden of rare diseases, that is, costs borne by patients, families, and societies. Including these types of costs in future studies would provide a more comprehensive picture of the burden of disease, providing empirical data to inform how we value and make decisions regarding rare disease interventions, health policy, and resource allocation.

Cost-utility analysis of emicizumab for the treatment of severe hemophilia A patients in Canada

INTRODUCTION

EHL FVIII products and emicizumab provide clinicians with other prophylactic options for treating hemophilia A, however, it is unclear if emicizumab is a cost-saving option. The objective of this study is to estimate the health and economic effects of using prophylactic EHL FVIII, SHL FVIII, and emicizumab in severe haemophilia A patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A state-transition Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic SHL FVIII, EHL FVIII, and emicizumab in a cohort of 2-year-old male patients over a lifetime horizon in the form of a cost-utility analysis using a Canadian provincial ministry of health payer perspective. The transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from literature and the Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis, over a lifetime horizon, resulted in a total cost and utilities per person for SHL FVIII, EHL FVIII, and emicizumab of $27.2 million (M), $36.7 M, and $26.2 M, respectively, and 31.30, 31.16, and 31.61 quality-adjusted life years, respectively. Emicizumab treatment resulted in 29 and 16 less bleeds in a lifetime compared to SHL FVIII and EHL FVIII, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that emicizumab was cost-saving 100% of the time compared to SHL FVIII and EHL FVIII.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility analysis showed that emicizumab is more effective and may be less costly than FVIII for Canadian haemophilia A patients, conditional on drug cost assumptions. Our model indicates that emicizumab may be a potentially favourable treatment option for minimising healthcare costs and providing higher effectiveness.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein compared with recombinant factor IX for the treatment of moderate-severe to severe hemophilia B in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) and recombinant factor IX (rFIX) for the treatment of hemophilia B (HB) in China.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic Markov model including three health states: alive, requiring surgery, and dead. This model estimated the lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of prophylaxis in childhood, followed by on-demand treatment in adulthood for moderate-severe to severe HB patients from China's healthcare system perspective. Efficacy data derived from pivotal clinical trials, clinical guideline recommendations, and expert consultation were applied to two scenarios (full dose and low dose). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

OUTCOMES

Lifetime cost, QALYs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated, and the results were compared with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of one to three times the gross domestic product per capita of China in 2021 ($12,551-$37,653).

RESULTS

RFIXFc was associated with lower cost and more QALYs than rFIX in both scenarios, which suggested that it is a dominant strategy (more effective and cheaper) for moderate-severe to severe HB in China. In the full-dose scenario, rFIXFc saved more money and yielded more QALYs than in the low-dose scenario (low doses are the typical clinical reality in China). PSA demonstrated that rFIXFc had an over 90% probability of being cost-effective with full-dose and low-dose treatment at WTP thresholds of $12,551-$37,653.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with rFIX, rFIXFc appears to be a cost-effective option for the lifetime management of moderate-severe to severe HB patients in China.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of somatrogon once-weekly injections vs. daily growth hormone injection for treating paediatric growth hormone deficiency in Ireland

OBJECTIVES

Paediatric growth hormone deficiency (pGHD) manifests as growth failure associated with inadequate growth hormone (GH) production. Daily injections of recombinant human GH (dGH) [somatropin] is the current standard of care, which has been shown to be well tolerated and effective, but associated with suboptimal adherence, leading to reduced effectiveness. Somatrogon, a once-weekly injectable long-acting human GH, has demonstrated clinical non-inferiority and significantly lower life interference (i.e. treatment burden) vs. somatropin in two Phase 3 studies. This work evaluated cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of somatrogon vs dGHs from an Irish payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed for patients starting somatrogon or dGHs treatment at 3-12 years and continuing up to achievement of near adult height (NAH), with growth driven by trial-based height velocity (HV) and treatment-specific adherence. Patients could discontinue treatment at the end of Year 1 (4%). DGH adherence (95.3%-65% over treatment duration) and adherence-growth relationship were based on published evidence. Higher Year 1 adherence of 4%, tapering over time, for somatrogon vs. dGHs was based on clinical consultation. Treatment costs, monitoring costs and costs due to different wastage types (device setting and adherence) were sourced from local data. Health utilities based on height and injection frequency were derived from published literature. Scenario analysis, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Somatrogon treatment led to 1.87-3.66 cm greater NAH gain and 0.21-0.50 higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dGHs, across the base case and scenarios evaluated. Somatrogon treatment was associated with cost savings of €5,699-€21,974 and lower cost per cm gained vs. dGHs (€197-€527), per patient. Somatrogon was cost-effective vs. dGHs, with the result consistent across the sensitivity analyses conducted.

CONCLUSION

Somatrogon weekly injections were estimated to result in higher NAH, higher QALYs, lower overall costs and lower costs per cm gained than dGHs, in pGHD.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of rFVIIIFc Versus Contemporary rFVIII Treatments for Patients with Severe Hemophilia A Without Inhibitors in the United States

BACKGROUND

A range of treatments for patients with severe hemophilia A (HA) have been developed over the last decade, allowing for reduced frequency of administration and improved outcomes (joint health and breakthrough bleeding rates). While clinically effective, the cost effectiveness of these treatments has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

This study presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of contemporary rFVIII treatments for severe HA patients without inhibitors.

METHODS

A published semi-Markov model was used to compare three different prophylaxis regimens: (1) extended half-life (EHL) recombinant Factor VIII (rFVIII) Fc-fusion protein (rFVIIIFc, Eloctate^®, Sanofi), (2) EHL PEGylated rFVIII (PEG-rFVIII, Adynovate^®, Takeda), and (3) standard half-life (SHL) rFVIII (antihemophilic factor [recombinant], Advate^®, Takeda), used as a proxy for all SHL rFVIII treatments. Acquisition costs were included based on published dosing and weight data. Benefits were incorporated through published annualized bleeding rates, rates of target joint development/resolution, and improvements in the modified hemophilia joint health score. Results were presented as total, discounted costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

rFVIIIFc was shown to provide the most QALYs (27.922) compared with both PEG-rFVIII (27.454) and SHL rFVIII (27.071), at lower costs. Discounted lifetime costs were estimated at US$18.235m (rFVIIIFc), US$20.198m (PEG-rFVIII), and US$18.285m (SHL rFVIII), and were predominantly affected by model settings related to acquisition costs, patient weight, and dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

rFVIIIFc may offer a cost-effective option for severe HA patients. Uncertainties owing to the limited evidence base is the main limitation of the study.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the prophylaxis versus on-demand regimens in severe hemophilia A patients under 12 years old in southern Iran

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens in hemophilia A patients, under-12-years-old in southern Iran.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness study comparing prophylaxis versus on-demand was conducted on 34 hemophilia patients (24 and 10 patients were on the prophylaxis and on-demand regimens respectively) in 2017. The Markov model was used to estimate the economic and clinical outcomes. The costs were collected from the societal perspective, and the utility criterion was the 'quality adjusted life year (QALY)' indicator. The required data were collected using a researcher-made cost checklist, the EQ5D standard questionnaire and Hemophilia Joint Health Score. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to determine the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The means of costs, joint health score and QALY in the prophylaxis regimen were $478,963.1 purchasing power parity (PPP), 96.67, and 11.98 respectively, and in the on-demand regimen were $521,797.2 PPP, 93.46 and 10.99 respectively. The PSA confirmed the robustness of the model's results. The results of the scatter plots and acceptability curves showed that the prophylaxis regimen in 97% of the simulations for the thresholds below $20950 PPP was more cost-effective than on-demand regimen.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis regimen showed the lower costs and higher effectiveness and utility in comparison with the on-demand regimen. It is recommended that prophylaxis should be considered as the standard care for treatment of hemophilic patients.

Hemophilia Gene Therapy: Approaching the First Licensed Product

The clinical potential of hemophilia gene therapy has now been pursued for the past 30 years, and there is a realistic expectation that this goal will be achieved within the next couple of years with the licensing of a gene therapy product. While recent late phase clinical trials of hemophilia gene therapy have shown promising results, there remain a number of issues that require further attention with regard to both efficacy and safety of this therapeutic approach. In this review, we present information relating to the current status of the field and focus attention on the unanswered questions for hemophilia gene therapy and the future challenges that need to be overcome to enable the widespread application of this treatment paradigm.

Redefining prophylaxis in the modern era

Prophylaxis is the globally accepted standard of care for persons with haemophilia and presents many advantages over episodic treatment. The prophylaxis benefits include bleed reduction, reduction in musculoskeletal complications and improvement in the quality of life. The currently evolving novel therapies for the management of haemophilia has ushered a new era characterized by improved prophylaxis targets and outcomes. These redefined targets and outcomes have necessitated the need to also redefine prophylaxis. In this state-of-the-art review, we redefine prophylaxis in the modern era by revisiting its definition, presenting data to support higher trough levels to achieve with prophylaxis and introducing steady-state haemostasis as a possible new target for prophylaxis.

Cost-effectiveness of emicizumab vs bypassing agents in the prevention of bleeding episodes in haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors in France

INTRODUCTION

The development of an anti-FVIII inhibitor is the most serious complication of haemophilia A occurring in up to 30% of severe haemophilic patients. The current management of haemophilia A with inhibitor uses bypassing agents (BPA) and represents a significant therapeutic burden together with a limited adherence to prophylactic treatment. Emicizumab is the first monoclonal antibody developed in haemophilia A approved for the prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with anti-FVIII inhibitor.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of emicizumab versus BPAs.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed over a five-year time horizon to estimate the comparative costs and benefits of the different therapeutic approaches in this rare disease. Model inputs were clinical, including annual bleeding rate and quality of life, and economical including mainly costs of prophylaxis, bleeds and adverse events.

RESULTS

Emicizumab treatment is dominant, ie lest costly and more effective, in the base-case analysis saving 234 191 € for a gain of 0.88 QALY. This is confirmed by both the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The main limit of the study remains the absence of long-term clinical data allowing to relate treatment consumption to clinical benefit, especially in the progression of haemophilic arthropathy.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that emicizumab is a cost-effective treatment allowing to consider an easy to implement prophylactic treatment for haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors.

Real-world outcomes associated with standard half-life and extended half-life factor replacement products for treatment of haemophilia A and B

: Standard-of-care treatment for haemophilia A or B is to maintain adequate coagulation factor levels through clotting factor administration. The current study aimed to evaluate annualised bleeding rates (ABR) and treatment adherence for haemophilia A or B patients receiving standard half-life (SHL) vs. extended half-life (EHL) factor replacement products. We analysed data from the Adelphi Disease-Specific Programmes, a health record-based survey of United States and European haematologists. Analysis included 651 males with moderate-to-severe haemophilia A or B (the United States, n = 132; Europe, n = 519). The haemophilia A analysis included 501 patients (SHL, n = 435; EHL, n = 66). In the combined United States/European population, mean (SD) ABR was 1.7 (1.69) for the SHL group and 1.8 (2.00) for the EHL group. A total of 72% of patients receiving SHL factor VIII and 75% of patients receiving EHL factor VIII in the combined population were fully adherent (no doses missed of the last 10 doses), as reported by physicians. The haemophilia B analysis included 150 patients (SHL, n = 114; EHL, n = 36). The mean (SD) ABR in the combined population was 2.1 (2.16) for patients receiving SHL factor IX (FIX) and 1.4 (1.48) for patients receiving EHL FIX. The percentage of fully adherent patients (physician-reported) was similar in both treatment groups (SHL FIX, 68%; EHL FIX, 73%). In this preliminary real-world survey in a relatively small sample of patients, measures of ABR and adherence between SHL and EHL products were evaluated. Additional real-world research on prescribing patterns, SHL vs. EHL effectiveness, and adherence is warranted.

Treatment Options in Hemophilia

BACKGROUND

Approximately 4550 persons were under treatment for hemophilia in Germany in 2017. The condition is currently treated with intravenous supplementa- tion of the missing clotting factor, either prophylactically or as needed. Newer treat- ment options rely on novel mechanisms of action.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in MEDLINE/PubMed, as well as on expert opinions and the recommenda- tions of specialty societies.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials have shown that, in children aged 30 months to 6 years, prophylactic clotting-factor supplementation yields a markedly lower an- nual rate of hemorrhage than supplementation as needed: 3.27 (standard deviation [SD] 6.24) for the former vs. 17.69 (SD 9.25) for the latter. A similar large effect was seen in patients aged 12 to 50 years, with hemorrhage rates of 1.9 (SD 4.1) vs. 28.7 (SD 18.8). Clotting-factor preparations with longer half-lives make it possible to lessen the frequency of administration and to prevent subtherapeutic factor levels. A number of alternatives to clotting-factor supplementation have recently been approved or are currently being clinically tested. These new drugs are injected sub- cutaneously and have a longer half-life, possibly enabling better protection against bleeding than the current standard treatment. A further advantage of some of these drugs is that they can be given even in the presence of inhibitors to factor VIII. In addition, initial (phase I) clinical trials of gene therapy have been performed suc- cessfully for both hemophilia A and hemophilia B.

CONCLUSION

Now that new alternatives to classic supplementation therapy are be- coming available, pertinent treatment algorithms for patients with hemophilia will have to be developed. It is still unclear to what extent the new drugs might supplant clotting factor supplementation as the first line of treatment.

Switching patients in the age of long-acting recombinant products?

Introduction: Prophylaxis with factor replacement therapy is the gold standard for the treatment of hemophilia, but this often requires frequent infusions. A number of long-acting factor products have been developed to reduce the burden on patients. Areas covered: This is an overview of information presented at two symposia held at the World Federation of Hemophilia and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis - Scientific and Standardization Committee annual meetings. The pharmacokinetic, safety and efficacy data for long-acting recombinant products are reviewed, with a focus on recombinant factor IX albumin fusion protein (rIX-FP) and rVIII-SingleChain. This overview also provides a guide for managing a patient's switch to long-acting products. Expert opinion: Long-acting products may allow patients to maintain or decrease bleeding rates whilst increasing their dosing interval, which may in turn reduce the burden on patients and caregivers. When switching patients to long-acting products health-care professionals should provide balanced and thorough education to the patient, whilst supporting their emotional well-being. Regimens should address patients' needs and goals but should also be guided by clinical phenotype and pharmacokinetic assessment. Follow-up should assess safety concerns, bleeding rates, joint health and the impact of the regimen on patients' lifestyle.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Recombinant Factor VIII Fc-Fusion Protein (rFVIIIFc) for the Treatment of Severe Hemophilia A in Italy Incorporating Real-World Dosing and Joint Health Data

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe hemophilia A (SHA) in Italy are routinely treated with standard half-life recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products. rFVIII Fc-fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) is an extended half-life rFVIII product that enables less frequent administration than rFVIII, which may support improved adherence. Available data indicate low breakthrough bleed rates and potentially improved long-term joint health for patients treated with rFVIIIFc prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the cost effectiveness of rFVIIIFc versus rFVIII from an Italian healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A Semi-Markov model was constructed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits of rFVIII and rFVIIIFc prophylaxis. rFVIII product acquisition costs from a published Italian database were included for both prophylaxis and the resolution of breakthrough bleeding. Clinical outcomes within the model were determined based on published annualized bleeding rates and literature regarding the development of target joints (TJs) as the incidence of bleeds and TJs is associated with impaired health-related quality of life. Cost effectiveness was assessed using cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Compared with rFVIII, rFVIIIFc was associated with a per-patient cost saving of approximately €1.3 million and QALY gains of 0.39 over a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses considering alternative efficacy, dosing, and structural assumptions each showed that rFVIIIFc dominated rFVIII (i.e., provided more QALYs at a reduced cost).

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that rFVIIIFc may offer a cost-effective treatment option for patients with SHA in Italy.

Extended half-life recombinant products in haemophilia clinical practice - Expectations, opportunities and challenges

Extended half-life (EHL) products have shown robust efficacy in clinical trials, whilst allowing for less intense treatment regimens when compared with standard half-life products. Regimen optimisation with EHL products could lead to further improvements in bleeding rates, quality of life and reductions in treatment burden. Patients now expect good efficacy, a lower treatment burden and equivalent safety when compared with standard half-life products. As our knowledge base grows these expectations have evolved and targeting an annualised bleeding rate of zero has become a more realistic clinical goal. Personalised prophylaxis can help patients achieve these goals. However, a number of challenges still remain, including cost, challenges in predicting outcomes for patients and differences in patients' and clinicians' expectations. When switching a patient, comprehensive patient care can reduce the impact of these issues. This review presents in brief the protein therapeutics with an extended half-life, including key trial results, challenges of chronic care that impact on patients' outcomes and how the modified proteins might help address some of these issues. In addition, practical steps for managing the switch to EHL products are presented.

Perioperative haemostasis with full-length, PEGylated, recombinant factor VIII with extended half-life (rurioctocog alfa pegol) in patients with haemophilia A: Final results of a multicentre, single-arm phase III trial

Introduction

Rurioctocog alfa pegol (BAX 855, TAK‐660) is a PEGylated, full‐length, recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) with extended half‐life developed from unmodified rFVIII (antihaemophilic factor [recombinant]).

Aim

To determine the perioperative haemostatic efficacy and safety of rurioctocog alfa pegol in male previously treated patients (PTPs) with severe haemophilia A.

Methods

This multicentre, single‐arm, phase III study included PTPs who were to undergo major or minor elective or minor emergency surgical, dental or other invasive procedures. Rurioctocog alfa pegol dose and frequency were individualized based on patients’ pharmacokinetic profiles for major surgeries and by rurioctocog alfa pegol incremental recovery for minor surgeries. Haemostatic efficacy was assessed using the Global Haemostatic Efficacy Assessment score.

Results

Twenty‐one patients aged 16‐61 years underwent 21 major and five minor surgeries. For all 24 evaluable surgeries, overall haemostatic efficacy was rated as excellent and blood loss comparable to that expected in non‐haemophilic patients. No blood transfusions were required intraoperatively but were administered postoperatively for four surgeries in three patients. Five injury‐related postoperative bleeding episodes occurred in five patients, of which two required additional rurioctocog alfa pegol treatment. Two non‐serious adverse events of mild severity (increased ALT level and headache) were considered possibly related to rurioctocog alfa pegol. There were no deaths or treatment‐related serious adverse events. No patients developed inhibitory antibodies to FVIII or persistent IgG‐ or IgM‐binding antibodies to FVIII, PEG‐FVIII or PEG.

Conclusion

Rurioctocog alfa pegol was well tolerated and effective for perioperative use in patients with haemophilia A and showed no signs of immunogenicity.

rFVIIIFC for hemophilia A prophylaxis

Introduction: rFVIIIFC was the first extended half-life product to complete the phase 3 development program and be registered. It was developed to reduce the high treatment burden imposed by prophylaxis. It is now one of four extended half-life products available for a variety of indications in hemophilia A. This article focus on the efficacy use of rFVIIIFC in the prevention of bleeds in hemophilia A. Areas covered: This article provides an update on efficacy data from three clinical studies describing the use of rFVIIIFC in the treatment and prevention of bleeds in hemophilia A. The update includes the efficacy use of rFVIII in all age groups, in the perisurgical setting, in immune tolerance induction, and in improving the quality of life of patients. The role of rFVIIIFC prophylaxis in the face of rapidly evolving non-replacement therapy and gene therapy is summarized. Expert commentary: The role of rFVIIIFC in hemophilia A prophylaxis is uncertain in the light of development of newer prophylaxis agents with better route of administration, improved pharmacokinetic and superior efficacy profiles. While rFVIIIFC was primarily developed for prophylaxis in hemophilia A, this role may change in the face of competitive extended half-life products and non-replacement therapies.