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.

Systematic review and analysis of efficacy of recombinant factor IX products for prophylactic treatment of hemophilia B in comparison with rIX-FP

Aims: Prophylaxis with standard-acting recombinant factor IX (rFIX) in hemophilia B patients requires frequent injections. Extended half-life (EHL) products allow for prolonged dosing intervals, and so reduce this treatment burden. Three technologies are employed to extend the half-life of FIX; glycopegylation, Fc-fusion, and albumin fusion. rIX-FP is a novel albumin fusion protein, which allows for a prolonged dosing interval of up to 14 days. A systematic review and indirect statistical comparison was performed to evaluate the efficacy of both EHL and standard-acting rFIX products compared with rIX-FP in Phase III trials for prophylaxis in adult hemophilia B patients. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted in both EMBASE and PubMed to identify Phase III trials of prophylactic rFIX treatment in previously treated hemophilia B patients aged ≥12 years (FIX ≤2%). Annualized bleeding rate (ABR), spontaneous ABR (AsBR), and joint ABR (AjBR) data were extracted from each study. A z-test was performed using the mean of each parameter, and the mean difference in outcome between studies was calculated. Results: Seven articles investigating six rFIX products were identified. Median ABR, AsBR, and AjBR ranged from 0-3.0, 0-1.0, and 0-1.1 (means = 0.8-4.26, 0.13-2.6, and 0.34-2.85), respectively. rIX-FP achieved the lowest median and mean values in all three parameters. Z-tests showed that mean ABR was significantly lower for rIX-FP 7-day prophylaxis compared with the majority of standard-acting and other EHL rFIX products. Limitations: The low number of appropriate trials available for comparison limits the quantity of data available for comparison, and restricts the use of methods of adjustment for variance in study design or patient characteristics. However, these limitations are shared with similar analyses published in this field. Conclusion: This indirect comparison of Phase III trials indicates that rIX-FP efficacy compares favorably vs other rFIX products for prophylaxis in hemophilia B.

Using pharmacokinetics for tailoring prophylaxis in people with hemophilia switching between clotting factor products: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the current use of pharmacokinetics for tailoring prophylaxis in hemophilia patients switching between clotting factor products. Patients with hemophilia may require switching of clotting factor concentrates due to a variety of factors, but there have been perceived risks associated with switching, such as inhibitor development or suboptimal protection due to inadequate dosing while titrating treatment. Studies that look at patients switching from one clotting factor concentrate to another are categorized in terms of their primary and/or secondary objectives, notably biosimilarity and comparative pharmacokinetic studies and inhibitor development studies. Research on how best to switch concentrates with respect to dosing regimen are lacking, and currently a trial‐and‐error approach is used for dosing the new factor concentrate. In the future, studies looking at the predictability of pharmacokinetics (PK) of a new factor concentrate based on individual PK knowledge of the original factor concentrate may offer clinical benefit by providing a safer switching approach and protocol.

Switching to recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein prophylaxis results in fewer infusions, decreased factor IX consumption and lower bleeding rates

In the phase 3 B-LONG [Recombinant Factor IX Fc Fusion Protein (rFIXFc) in Subjects with Haemophilia B] study, rFIXFc dosed every 1-2 weeks was safe and efficacious in previously treated subjects with haemophilia B. To date, there are no evaluations of transitioning from conventional to long-acting factor IX (FIX) prophylaxis. This post-hoc analysis of B-LONG subjects compared prophylaxis with other FIX products and rFIXFc. Pre- and on-study data were analysed to assess dosing regimen, weekly FIX consumption and annualized bleeding rates (ABRs). Population pharmacokinetics models were used to generate FIX activity profiles with rFIXFc and recombinant FIX prophylaxis. Thirty-nine subjects, previously treated prophylactically, were evaluated. Prior to study, most subjects (69·2%) received twice-weekly FIX infusions; on study, subjects infused rFIXFc once every 1-2 weeks with c. 30-50% reductions in weekly consumption. On-study estimated mean ABRs were lower than pre-study estimated mean ABRs. Models predicted that rFIXFc administered 50 iu/kg weekly and 100 iu/kg every 10 d would maintain steady-state FIX trough levels ≥1 iu/dl in 95·4% and 89·2% of subjects, respectively. These results indicate that patients receiving rFIXFc prophylaxis can markedly reduce infusion frequency and FIX consumption, have a greater likelihood of maintaining FIX activity >1 iu/dl and experience fewer bleeding episodes compared with prior FIX prophylaxis.

Recombinant factor IX (BAX326) in previously treated paediatric patients with haemophilia B: a prospective clinical trial

A newly developed recombinant factor IX (BAX326(1) ) was investigated for prophylactic use in paediatric patients aged <12 years with severe (FIX level <1%) or moderately severe (FIX level 1-2%) haemophilia B. The aim of this prospective clinical trial was to assess the safety, haemostatic efficacy and pharmacokinetic profile of BAX326 in previously treated paediatric patients. BAX326 was administered as prophylaxis twice a week for a period of 6 months, and on demand for treatment of bleeds. Safety was assessed by the occurrence of related AEs, thrombotic events and immunologic assessments. Efficacy was evaluated by annualized bleeding rate (ABR), and by treatment response rating (excellent, good, fair, none). PK was assessed over 72 h. None of the 23 treated paediatric subjects had treatment-related SAEs or AEs. There were no thrombotic events, inhibitory or specific binding antibodies against FIX, rFurin or CHO protein. Twenty-six bleeds (19 non-joint vs. 7 joint bleeds) occurred (mean ABR 2.7 ± 3.14, median 2.0), of which 23 were injury-related. Twenty subjects (87%) did not experience any bleeds of spontaneous aetiology. Haemostatic efficacy of BAX326 was excellent or good for >96% of bleeds (100% of minor, 88.9% of moderate and 100% of major bleeds); the majority (88.5%) resolved after 1-2 infusions. Longer T1/2 and lower IR were observed in younger children (<6 years) compared to those aged 6 to 12 years. BAX326 administered as prophylactic treatment as well as for controlling bleeds is efficacious and safe in paediatric patients aged <12 years with haemophilia B.

BAX326 (RIXUBIS): a novel recombinant factor IX for the control and prevention of bleeding episodes in adults and children with hemophilia B

Hemophilia B management has improved considerably since the introduction of high-purity plasma-derived factor IX (pdFIX) products in the early 1990s. Recombinant FIX (rFIX) was introduced more recently and has potential safety advantages over the older blood-based products. Until recently, only one such product, nonacog alfa (BeneFIX(®), Pfizer, Inc.), has been available. However, a new rFIX product, BAX326 (RIXUBIS, Baxter Healthcare Corp.), has now been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. BAX326 undergoes rigorous virus elimination and purification steps during manufacture, and has low activated FIX activity, which confers low thrombogenic potential in humans. Preclinical studies showed promising pharmacokinetic and safety profiles, and these early findings have since been expanded in a series of prospective, multicenter, clinical studies. Foremost among these is a pivotal phase I/III study of BAX326 and its use in routine prophylaxis or on-demand treatment in patients aged 12-65 years with severe (FIX level <1%) or moderately severe (FIX level ≤2%) hemophilia B. This study confirmed the pharmacokinetic equivalence of BAX326 and nonacog alfa, and showed a significant reduction in annualized bleeding rate with BAX326 prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment (79% versus historic controls; p < 0.001). The hemostatic efficacy of BAX326 was rated as 'excellent' or 'good' in 96% of bleeds. BAX326 was also associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in physical health-related quality of life. Results are similarly encouraging in a pediatric study in children aged up to 12 years and in a study in hemophilia B patients undergoing surgery. A further study showed safe transition, with no inhibitor formation in any patient, from treatment with a pdFIX product to BAX326. Overall, the safety profile of BAX326 in clinical trials has been strong, with no inhibitor or specific antibody formation, thrombosis, or treatment-related serious adverse events or anaphylaxis.