Prophylaxis with anti-inhibitor coagulant complex improves health-related quality of life in haemophilia patients with inhibitors: results from FEIBA NF Prophylaxis Study

Emicizumab prophylaxis in haemophilia A with inhibitors: Three years follow-up from the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors' Organisation (UKHCDO)

INTRODUCTION

The UK National Haemophilia Database (NHD) collects data from all UK persons with haemophilia A with inhibitors (PwHA-I). It is well-placed to investigate patient selection, clinical outcomes, drug safety and other issues not addressed in clinical trials of emicizumab.

AIMS

To determine safety, bleeding outcomes and early effects on joint health of emicizumab prophylaxis in a large, unselected cohort using national registry and patient reported Haemtrack (HT) data between 01 January 2018 and 30 September 2021.

METHODS

Prospectively collected bleeding outcomes were analysed in people with ≥6 months emicizumab HT data and compared with previous treatment if available. Change in paired Haemophilia Joint Health Scores (HJHS) were analysed in a subgroup. Adverse events (AEs) reports were collected and adjudicated centrally.

RESULTS

This analysis includes 117 PwHA-I. Mean annualised bleeding rate (ABR) was .32 (95% CI, .18; .39) over a median 42 months treatment with emicizumab. Within-person comparison (n = 74) demonstrated an 89% reduction in ABR after switching to emicizumab and an increase in zero treated bleed rate from 45 to 88% (p < .01). In a subgroup of 37 people, total HJHS improved in 36%, remained stable in 46% and deteriorated in 18%, with a median (IQR) within-person change of -2.0 (-9, 1.5) (p = .04). Three arterial thrombotic events were reported, two possibly drug related. Other AEs were generally non-severe and usually limited to early treatment, included cutaneous reactions (3.6%), headaches (1.4%), nausea (2.8%) and arthralgia (1.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Emicizumab prophylaxis is associated with sustained low bleeding rates and was generally well-tolerated in people with haemophilia A and inhibitors.

Radiosynovectomy for the Treatment of Chronic Hemophilic Synovitis: An Old Technique, but Still Very Effective

A radiosynovectomy (RS) should be indicated when recurrent articular bleeds related to chronic hemophilia synovitis (CHS) exist, established by clinical examination, and confirmed by imaging techniques that cannot be constrained with hematological prophylaxis. RS can be performed at any point in life, mainly in adolescents (>13−14 years) and adults. Intraarticular injection (IAI) of a radioactive material in children might be arduous since we need child collaboration which might include general anesthesia. RS is our initial option for management of CHS. For the knee joint we prescribe Yttrium-90, while for the elbow and ankle we prescribe Rhenium-186 (1 to 3 IAIs every 6 months). The procedure is greatly cost efficient when compared to surgical synovectomy. Chemical synovectomy with rifampicin has been reported to be efficacious, inexpensive, simple, and especially practical in developing countries where radioactive materials are not easily available. Rifampicin seems to be more efficacious when it is utilized in small joints (elbows and ankles), than when utilized in bigger ones (knees). When RS and/or chemical synovectomy fail, arthroscopic synovectomy (or open synovectomy in some cases) should be indicated. For us, surgery must be performed after the failure of 3 RSs with 6-month interims. RS is an effective and minimally invasive intervention for treatment of repeated articular bleeds due to CHS. Although it has been published that the risk of cancer does not increase, and that the amount of radioactive material used in RS is insignificant, the issue of chromosomal and/or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) changes remains a concern and continued surveillance is critical. As child and adulthood prophylaxis becomes more global, RS might become obsolete in the long-term.

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

BACKGROUND

The hallmark of severe hemophilia (A or B) is recurrent bleeding into joints and soft tissues with progressive joint damage, despite on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis has long been used, but not universally adopted, because of medical, psychosocial, and cost controversies.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis in managing previously-treated individuals with hemophilia A or B.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. In addition, we searched MEDLINE and Embase and online trial registries. Most recent search of Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating people with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, who were previously treated with clotting factor concentrates to manage their hemophilia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed trials for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The authors used the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials (including 608 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Eight of the trials (477 participants) had arms comparing two or more prophylactic regimens to one another and four of the trials (n = 258) compared prophylaxis to on-demand treatment (two trials had multiple arms and were included in both comparisons). Comparison of two or more prophylactic regimens For trials comparing one prophylaxis regimen to another, given the heterogeneity of the data, none of the data were pooled for this comparison. Considering the individual trials, three trials reported the primary outcome of joint bleeding, and none showed a dfference between dosing regimens (low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcome of total bleeding events, prophylaxis with a twice-weekly regimen of FIX likely results in reduced total bleeds compared to a once-a-week regimen of the same dose, mean difference (MD) 11.2 (5.81 to 16.59) (one trial, 10 participants, low-certainty evidence). Transient low-titer anti-FVIII inhibitors were reported in one of the trials. Blood-transmitted infections were not identified. Other adverse events reported include hypersensitivity, oedema, and weight gain. These were, however, rare and unrelated to study drugs (very low-certainty evidence). Comparison of prophylactic and on-demand regimens Four of the trials (258 participants) had arms that compared prophylaxis to on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis may result in a large decrease in the number of joint bleeds compared to on-demand treatment, MD -30.34 (95% CI -46.95 to -13.73) (two trials, 164 participants, low-certainty evidence). One of these trials (84 participants) also reported the long-term effects of prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy showing improved joint function, quality of life, and pain; but no differences between groups in joint structure when assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In one trial (84 participants) validated measures for joint health and pain assessment showed that prophylaxis likely improves joint health compared to an on-demand regimen with an estimated change difference of 0.94 points (95% CI 0.23 to 1.65) and improves total pain scores, MD -17.20 (95% CI -27.48 to -6.92 (moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials (131 participants) reported that prophylaxis likely results in a slight increase in adverse events, risk ratio 1.71 (1.24 to 2.37) (moderate-certainty evidence). No inhibitor development and blood-transmitted infections were identified. Overall, the certainty of the body of evidence was judged to be low because of different types of bias that could have altered the effect.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from RCTs that prophylaxis, as compared to on-demand treatment, may reduce bleeding frequency in previously-treated people with hemophilia. Prophylaxis may also improve joint function, pain and quality of life, even though this does not translate into a detectable improvement of articular damage when assessed by MRI.  When comparing two different prophylaxis regimens, no significant differences in terms of protection from bleeding were found. Dose optimization could, however, result in improved efficacy. Given the heterogeneity of the data, pooled estimates were not obtained for most comparisons.  Well-designed RCTs and prospective observational controlled studies with standardised definitions and measurements are needed to establish the optimal and most cost-effective treatment regimens.

Factor VIII inhibitor bypass activity (FEIBA) for the reduction of transfusion in cardiac surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled bleeding after cardiac surgery can be life-threatening. Factor eight inhibitor bypassing activity (FEIBA) is a prothrombin complex concentrate empirically used as rescue therapy for correction of refractory bleeding diathesis post-cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). FEIBA used as rescue therapy for bleeding diathesis after CPB has been associated with a low incidence of complications and a reduction in transfusion requirement and re-exploration. The feasibility and efficacy of early administration of FEIBA after the termination of CPB have not been studied in a prospective randomized trial.

METHODS

We designed a small randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot trial to determine the feasibility of a larger trial testing the hypothesis that FEIBA decreases transfusion requirements after CPB. The study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of a larger pivotal trial to determine the effectiveness of FEIBA in reducing the total volume of blood products transfused perioperatively, and its safety profile. Study participants were adult patients undergoing elective major aortic cardiovascular surgery at a tertiary referral hospital, who were equally randomized to receive a single dose of either FEIBA or matched placebo intraoperatively at the end of CPB.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were screened and 12 were randomized and included in the analysis. Protocol adherence was high, and all patients received the study drug per intention-to-treat except one patient. There were no protocol deviations or events of unblinding, and adverse events were not different between groups. Patients in the FEIBA group were older and more likely to be female and had higher BMI, lower hematocrit, and longer hypothermic circulatory arrest. There were no differences in post-randomization blood product transfusions (difference FEIBA vs. placebo -899 mL; 95% CI -5206 to 3409) or in the administration of open-label FEIBA.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial confirmed the adequacy of the trial design that involved the early, blinded administration of FEIBA, by demonstrating excellent protocol adherence. We conclude that a larger trial establishing the effectiveness of early prothrombin complex concentrate administration to reduce the use of blood products in the setting of high-risk cardiac surgery is feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02577614 . Registered 16 October 2015.

Preferences and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Related to Disease and Treatment Features for Patients with Hemophilia A in a Canadian General Population Sample

BACKGROUND

Current treatments for hemophilia A in Canada include on-demand treatment as bleeds occur and regular intravenous prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII) infusions. The subcutaneous therapy emicizumab was recently approved for treatment of hemophilia A. The objective of this study was to estimate utility values associated with hemophilia A health and treatment states from a Canadian societal perspective, including preferences related to treatment efficacy and frequency and route of administration.

METHODS

A vignette-based time trade-off (TTO) utilities elicitation was undertaken in Canadian adults to compare preferences for six hemophilia health states describing prophylactic and on-demand treatment, with varying bleed rates and frequency of treatment administration. A convenience sample was recruited via market research panels and snowball sampling. Health state/vignette definitions were informed by clinical experience, clinical trial results regarding bleed frequency, and validated by qualitative interviews of hemophilia patients and caregivers (n=10). Utilities were estimated via an online, trained interviewer-guided, vignette-based TTO exercise, where respondents valuated health states describing hemophilia patients (adults or children) receiving subcutaneous prophylaxis, intravenous prophylaxis, and on-demand treatments. Analyses included a descriptive analysis by health state; a mixed-effects analysis of utility values adjusted for subcutaneous vs infusion-based therapies and number of bleeds; and for prophylactic regimens, an analysis of utilities by frequency of infusions or injections.

RESULTS

TTO interviews were conducted with 82 respondents. Mean utilities [95% CI] were highest for subcutaneous prophylaxis (0.90 [0.87-0.93]), followed by intravenous prophylaxis (0.81 [0.78-0.85]), and on-demand treatment (0.70 [0.65-0.76]). In regression analysis, subcutaneous treatment health states were associated with a utility increment of +0.1112. Additional bleeds and more frequent infusions were associated with lower utility values (-0.0027 per bleed and -0.0003 per infusion).

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous prophylaxis is associated with higher utility values compared to intravenous prophylactic and on-demand treatment, while increased bleeds and infusions are associated with reduced utility.

Health-related quality of life and health status in persons with haemophilia A with inhibitors: A prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study (NIS)

INTRODUCTION

Real-world data (RWD) on health-related outcomes in persons with haemophilia A (PwHA) provide insights into patient needs and can guide clinical study design. A global, prospective, non-interventional study (NIS; NCT02476942) collected detailed RWD on bleeding outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health status in PwHA treated per local routine clinical practice.

AIM

To report HRQoL and health status in the adult/adolescent PwHA with inhibitors cohort in the NIS.

METHODS

This cohort enrolled PwHA aged ≥12 years with high-titre factor VIII inhibitor history. Participants remained on their usual treatment (no protocol-specified interventions). Health-related outcomes: Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL), Haemophilia-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Children Short Form (Haemo-QoL SF), EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) index utility score (IUS) and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS).

RESULTS

One hundred three participants were enrolled on episodic (n = 75) or prophylactic treatment (n = 28); median (range) age, 31 (12-75) years; median (range) observation time, 26 (4-70) weeks. Haem-A-QoL scores indicated impairments in HRQoL aspects; comparable between episodic/prophylactic regimens and relatively consistent over time. Haemo-QoL SF scores with both regimens varied over time, and appeared poorer with episodic than prophylactic treatment. IUS and EQ-VAS were comparable between regimens, stable over time and lower on bleeding days. Mean proportions of missed work and school days were 16% and 23%, respectively; mean (standard deviation) number of days hospitalized was 3.2 (8.8) (comparable between groups).

CONCLUSIONS

These RWD demonstrate that PwHA with inhibitors have impaired HRQoL, despite standard treatment, and that more effective treatment options are needed.

The future of bypassing agents for hemophilia with inhibitors in the era of novel agents

Bypassing agents are presently the standard of care for the treatment of bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia and high-titer inhibitors and are also used for bleed prevention. Only two bypassing agents are available to patients, and these products trace their lineage to the 1970s (activated prothrombin complex concentrates) and the 1980s (recombinant factor VIIa). Given the limited repertoire of available products, clinicians have relied on experience, empirical observation, registry data and individualized care to improve clinical outcomes on a case-by-case basis. Research over the past two decades has culminated in a greatly improved understanding of human coagulation; resulting from this, new products have been developed that offer treatment options and mechanisms of actions that differ from current bypassing agents. The most advanced in clinical development is emicizumab, a bispecific antibody that mimics the function of FVIIIa in the intrinsic Xase complex and is indicated for once-weekly or every-other-week prophylactic dosing in inhibitor patients. Other non-traditional products in clinical development include fitusiran and antibodies directed against tissue factor pathway inhibitor. As non-factor-based therapies become more widely utilized over time, the use of bypassing agents may be expected to decrease; however, bypassing agents will remain essential for the foreseeable future. As such, clinical development of bypassing agents continues, with some products (e.g. eptacog beta) under regulatory review. In this review we examine the optimal use of bypassing agents and their mechanism of action. We also discuss newer products and how these might theoretically be administered in conjunction with traditional bypassing agents.

Inhibitor clinical burden of disease: a comparative analysis of the CHESS data

BACKGROUND

Patients with hemophilia and inhibitors generally face greater disease burden compared to patients without inhibitors. While raising awareness of relative burden may improve the standard of care for patients with inhibitors, comparative data are sparse. Analyzing data drawn from the Cost of Haemophilia across Europe - a Socioeconomic Survey (CHESS) study, the aim of this study was to compare the clinical burden of disease in patients with severe hemophilia with and without inhibitors. Hemophilia specialists (N = 139) across five European countries completed an online survey between January-April 2015, providing demographic, clinical and 12-month ambulatory/secondary care activity data for 1285 patients. Patients with hemophilia who currently presented with inhibitors and those who never had inhibitors were matched on baseline characteristics via propensity score matching. Outcomes were compared between the two cohorts using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank or McNemar's test.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who currently presented with inhibitors was 4.5% (58/1285). Compared to PS-matched patients without inhibitors, patients with inhibitors experienced more than twice the mean annual number of bleeds (mean ± standard deviation, 8.29 ± 9.18 vs 3.72 ± 3.95; p < .0001) and joint bleeds (2.17 ± 1.90 vs 0.98 ± 1.15; p < .0001), and required more hemophilia-related (mean ± standard deviation, 1.79 ± 1.83 vs 0.64 ± 1.13) and bleed-related hospitalizations (1.86 ± 1.88 vs 0.81 ± 1.26), hemophilia-related consultations (9.30 ± 4.99 vs 6.77 ± 4.47), and outpatient visits (22.09 ± 17.77 vs 11.48 ± 16.00) (all, p < .001). More than one-half (53.5%) experienced moderate/severe pain necessitating medication compared to one-third (32.8%) of patients without inhibitors (p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with hemophilia and inhibitors exhibited greater clinical burden and higher resource utilization compared to their peers without inhibitors. Strategies for improving the standard of care may alleviate burden in this population.

Spanish Consensus Guidelines on prophylaxis with bypassing agents in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors

Prophylaxis with the blood clotting factor, factor VIII (FVIII) is ineffective for individuals with haemophilia A and high-titre inhibitors to FVIII. Prophylaxis with the FVIII bypassing agents activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC; FEIBA® Baxalta) or recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa; Novo-Seven®, Novo Nordisk) may be an effective alternative. It was our aim to develop evidence -and expert opinion- based guidelines for prophylactic therapy for patients with high-titre inhibitors to FVIII. A panel of nine Spanish haematologists undertook a systematic review of the literature to develop consensusbased guidance. Particular consideration was given to prophylaxis in patients prior to undergoing immune tolerance induction (ITI) (a process of continued exposure to FVIII that can restore sensitivity for some patients), during the ITI period and for those not undergoing ITI or for whom ITI had failed. These guidelines offer guidance for clinicians in deciding which patients might benefit from prophylaxis with FVIII bypassing agents, the most appropriate agents in various clinical settings related to ITI, doses and dosing regimens and how best to monitor the efficacy of prophylaxis. The paper includes recommendations on when to interrupt or stop prophylaxis and special safety concerns during prophylaxis. These consensus guidelines offer the most comprehensive evaluation of the clinical evidence base to date and should be of considerable benefit to clinicians facing the challenge of managing patients with severe haemophilia A with high-titre FVIII inhibitors.

Bypassing agent prophylaxis in people with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors

BACKGROUND

People with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors are at high risk of bleeding complications. Infusion of bypassing agents, such as recombinant activated FVII (rFVIIa) and plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrate, are suggested as alternative therapies to factor VIII (haemophilia A) or IX (haemophilia B) for individuals who no longer respond to these treatments because they develop inhibitory antibodies. The ultimate goal of treatment is to preserve the individual's joints, otherwise destroyed by recurrent bleeds.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bypassing agent prophylaxis to prevent bleeding in people with hemophilia A or B and inhibitors.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies from the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched trial registries (16 February 2017) and bibliographic references of retrieved studies were reviewed for potential articles to be included in the review.Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Coagulopathies Trials Register: 12 December 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled studies (cross-over or parallel design) evaluating the effect of prophylaxis treatment with bypassing agents compared with on-demand treatment, or studies evaluating the effects of high-dose compared with low-dose prophylaxis in males of any age with hemophilia with inhibitors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias according to standard Cochrane criteria. They assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomized studies (duration 7 to 15 months) involving 116 males. Risk of bias was judged to be high in two studies due to the open-label study design and in one study due to attrition bias.Two studies compared on-demand treatment to prophylaxis with bypassing agents. In one study (34 males) prophylaxis significantly reduced mean overall bleeding rates, MD - 7.27 (95% CI -9.92 to -4.62) (low quality evidence), mean number of overall bleeding events per month, MD -1.10 (95% CI -1.54 to -0.66), mean number of hemarthrosis, MD -6.60 (95% CI -9.32 to -3.88) (low quality evidence) and mean number of joints that had hemarthrosis, MD -0.90 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.44). The meta-analysis did not conclusively demonstrate significant benefit of prophylaxis on health-related quality of life as measured by Haem-A-QoL score, EQ-5D total score and utility score, EQ-5D VAS and SF-36 physical summary and mental summary score (low quality evidence for all health-related quality of life analyses).The remaining two studies compared dose regimens. The results from one study (22 males) did not conclusively demonstrate benefit or harm of high-dose versus low-dose recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) as a prophylaxis for overall bleeding rate, MD -0.82 (95% CI -2.27 to 0.63) (moderate quality evidence), target joint bleeding rate, MD -3.20 (95% CI -7.23 to 0.83) (moderate quality evidence) and serious adverse events, RR 9.00 (95% CI, 0.54 to 149.50) (moderate quality evidence).The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low due to imprecision from limited information provided by studies with small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data in one study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that prophylaxis with bypassing agents may be effective in reducing bleeding in males with hemophilia with inhibitors. However, there is a lack of evidence for the superiority of one agent over the other or for the optimum dosage regimen. Further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylaxis treatment on health-related quality of life, as well as the effects of dose of bypassing agents on the outcomes.

The evolution of comprehensive haemophilia care in the United States: perspectives from the frontline

The establishment of dedicated comprehensive treatment centres more than a half century ago transformed the management of haemophilia in the United States. Formerly, a disease associated with crippling disability and premature death, today, persons with haemophilia who are treated appropriately from infancy and do not develop inhibitors can expect a normal life expectancy and relatively few bleeding episodes. The evolution of the comprehensive haemophilia care, while chastened by the viral epidemics of the 1980s, has been marked by ongoing advances, including prophylaxis, immune tolerance induction, new drugs and gene therapy research. Current challenges include sustaining the comprehensive care model despite decreased funding and expanding the delivery and affordability of comprehensive haemophilia care.

A Budget Impact Model of Hemophilia Bypassing Agent Prophylaxis Relative to Recombinant Factor VIIa On-Demand

BACKGROUND

Hemophilia patients use factor-clotting concentrates (factor VIII for hemophilia A and factor IX for hemophilia B) for improved blood clotting. These products are used to prevent or stop bleeding episodes. However, some hemophilia patients develop inhibitors (i.e., the patient's immune system develops antibodies against these factor concentrates). Hence, these patients do not respond well to the factor concentrates. A majority of hemophilia patients with inhibitors are managed on-demand with the following bypassing agents: recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) and activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC). The recently published U.S. registries Dosing Observational Study in Hemophilia (DOSE) and Hemostasis and Thrombosis Research Society (HTRS) reported higher rFVIIa on-demand use for bleed management than previously described.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate aPCC and rFVIIa prophylaxis costs relative to rFVIIa on-demand treatment cost based on rFVIIa doses reported in U.S. registries.

METHODS

A literature-based cost model was developed assuming a base case on-demand annual bleed rate (ABR) of 28.7 per inhibitor patient, which was taken from a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. The doses for rFVIIa on-demand were taken from the median dose per bleed reported by the DOSE and HTRS registries. Model inputs for aPCC and rFVIIa prophylaxis (i.e., dosing and efficacy) were derived from respective randomized clinical trials. Cost analysis was from the U.S. payer perspective, and only direct drug costs were considered. The drug cost was based on the Medicare Part B 2014 average sale price (ASP). Two-way sensitivity and threshold analyses were performed by simultaneously varying on-demand ABR, prophylaxis efficacy, and unit drug cost. In addition to studying relative costs associated with on-demand and prophylaxis treatments, relative cost per bleeding episode avoided were also calculated for aPCC and rFVIIa prophylaxis treatments. The prophylaxis efficacy reported in the trials were used to determine the number of bleeding episodes avoided.

RESULTS

Based on the median on-demand dose of 695 mcg per kg per bleed, reported by the DOSE registry, the annual rFVIIa on-demand cost was $34,009 per kg of body weight. The annual rFVIIa on-demand cost was $22,020 per kg of body weight when the median dose of 450 mcg per kg per bleed reported by the HTRS registry was considered. The annual cost rose to $38,461 per kg of body weight when the rFVIIa on-demand dose of 786 mcg per kg per bleed among patients infusing an initial dose ≥ 250 mcg per kg was considered. The aPCC (85 units per kg per every other day) and rFVIIa (90 mcg per kg per every day) annual prophylaxis costs were $26,536 and $60,700, respectively. Also, aPCC and rFVIIa prophyaxis treatments were estimated to prevent a total of 20.8 and 12.9 annual bleeding episodes, respectively. When compared with the on-demand dose of 695 mcg per kg per bleed (DOSE registry), the annual aPCC and rFVIIa prophylaxis costs were 21.9% lower and 78.4% higher, respectively. Additionally, aPCC prophylaxis saved $360 per kg for each bleeding episode avoided. rFVIIa prophylaxis cost $2,066 per kg for each bleeding episode avoided. Compared with the on-demand dose of 450 mcg per kg per bleed (HTRS registry), aPCC and rFVIIa prophylaxis costs were 20.5% and 174.9% higher, respectively. In this case, aPCC and rFVIIa prophylaxis treatment costs were $217 per kg and $2,995 per kg, respectively, for each bleeding episode avoided. aPCC and rFVIIa prophylaxis costs were 31.0% lower and 57.8% higher, respectively, when compared with the rFVIIa on-demand dose of 786 mcg per kg per bleed, among patients infusing an initial dose ≥ 250 mcg per kg (HTRS registry). In this case, aPCC prophylaxis saved $573 per kg for each bleeding episode avoided, while rFVIIa prophylaxis costs $1,724 per kg for each bleeding episode avoided. Results of the 2-way sensitivity analyses were robust in the majority of the scenarios considered.

CONCLUSIONS

aPCC prophylaxis may be cost saving for managing hemophilia patients with inhibitors who bleed frequently and infuse significant quantities of rFVIIa on-demand.

Advances in the clinical management of inhibitors in hemophilia A and B

Inhibitors to factor (F)VIII or FIX are the most serious and challenging complication of hemophilia treatment, increasing morbidity and mortality because bleeds no longer respond to standard clotting factor replacement therapy. For patients with high-titer inhibitors, immune tolerance induction achieved through regular factor exposure is the only proven therapy capable of Inhibitor eradication and is almost always indicated for inhibitors of recent onset. Bypassing therapy is used to treat and prevent bleeding, but neither of the two currently available bypassing agents has the predictable hemostatic efficacy of factor replacement in hemophilia patients without inhibitors. Major research efforts are focused on the development of new, more potent therapies for the management of patients with inhibitors.

How I use bypassing therapy for prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A and inhibitors

Inhibitor development poses a significant challenge in the management of hemophilia because once an inhibitor is present, bleeding episodes can no longer be treated with standard clotting factor replacement therapy. Consequently, patients with inhibitors are at increased risk for difficult-to-control bleeding and complications, particularly arthropathy and physical disability. Three clinical trials in patients with inhibitors have demonstrated that prophylaxis with a bypassing agent reduces joint and other types of bleeding and improves health-related quality of life compared with on-demand bypassing therapy. In hemophilia patients without inhibitors, the initiation of prophylaxis with factor (F) VIII or FIX prior to the onset of recurrent hemarthroses can prevent the development of joint disease. Whether this is also true for bypassing agent prophylaxis remains to be determined.

Estimates of utility weights in hemophilia: implications for cost-utility analysis of clotting factor prophylaxis

Estimates of preference-weighted health outcomes or health state utilities are needed to assess improvements in health in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Gains in quality-adjusted life-years are used to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of clotting factor compared with on-demand treatment among people with hemophilia, a congenital bleeding disorder. Published estimates of health utilities for people with hemophilia vary, contributing to uncertainty in the estimates of cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis. Challenges in estimating utility weights for the purpose of evaluating hemophilia treatment include selection bias in observational data, difficulty in adjusting for predictors of health-related quality of life and lack of preference-based data comparing adults with lifetime or primary prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis living within the same country and healthcare system.