The societal burden of haemophilia A. III - The potential impact of emicizumab on costs of haemophilia A in Australia

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.

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.

Economic Evaluation of Immune Tolerance Induction in Children With Severe Hemophilia A and High-Responding Inhibitors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis With Emicizumab

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with emicizumab in PsHAhri on ITI in Brazil.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness modeling analysis was used to estimate the costs per PsHAhri on ITI and the number of prevented bleedings from undertaking one intervention (prophylaxis with BpA) over another (prophylaxis with emicizumab), based on the Brazilian Ministry of Health perspective. Costs of ITI with recombinant FVIII, prophylaxis with BpA or emicizumab, and treated bleeding episodes with BpA costs were evaluated for PsHAhri who had ITI success or failure. This study was conducted with the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (payer).

RESULTS

During ITI, prophylaxis with BpA cost US $924 666/PsHAhri/ITI, whereas prophylaxis with emicizumab cost US $488 785/PsHAhri/ITI. During ITI, there was an average of 9.32 bleeding episodes/PsHAhri/ITI when BpA were used as prophylaxis and 0.67 bleeding/PsHAhri/ITI when emicizumab was used. By univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis, emicizumab remained dominant whichever variable was modified.

CONCLUSION

In this study, prophylaxis with emicizumab during ITI is a dominant option compared with prophylaxis with BpA during ITI.

Emicizumab: a novel drug in hemophilia A prophylaxis - a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Hemophilia A is a genetically conditioned disease leading to hemostatic disorders due to factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency. The treatment of hemophilia has evolved throughout the past years and has significantly changed. One of the newest drugs for prophylactic treatment is the humanized bispecific IgG antibody - emicizumab, which binds with factor IXa and factor X, bridging those factors and thus mimicking the activity of factor VIII.

AREAS COVERED

The literature search was made via PubMed database, with the emphasis on clinical trials and case reports, describing the off-label emicizumab use. This review presents an extensive summary and considers advantages and disadvantages (side-effects) of emicizumab, describing additional clinical situations, where emicizumab has been successfully used. In our review we cover information about the mechanisms of action, indications, efficacy and discuss some chosen case reports about off-label emicizumab use.

EXPERT OPINION

Its convenient administration method (subcutaneous) and frequency of injections (from once a week to once a month) makes it a more comfortable treatment, limiting injection-site reactions, hospital stays, costs of prophylaxis, and significantly increasing patients' quality of life. Adverse effects are scarce and rarely serious - the most common ones are reactions at the injection-site and upper respiratory tract infections.

International consensus recommendations on the management of people with haemophilia B

Haemophilia B is a rare X-linked genetic deficiency of coagulation factor IX (FIX) that, if untreated, can cause recurrent and disabling bleeding, potentially leading to severe arthropathy and/or life-threatening haemorrhage. Recent decades have brought significant improvements in haemophilia B management, including the advent of recombinant FIX and extended half-life FIX. This therapeutic landscape continues to evolve with several non-factor replacement therapies and gene therapies under investigation. Given the rarity of haemophilia B, the evidence base and clinical experience on which to establish clinical guidelines are relatively sparse and are further challenged by features that are distinct from haemophilia A, precluding extrapolation of existing haemophilia A guidelines. Due to the paucity of formal haemophilia B-specific clinical guidance, an international Author Group was convened to develop a clinical practice framework. The group comprised 15 haematology specialists from Europe, Australia, Japan, Latin America and North America, covering adult and paediatric haematology, laboratory medicine and biomedical science. A hybrid approach combining a systematic review of haemophilia B literature with discussion of clinical experience utilized a modified Delphi format to develop a comprehensive set of clinical recommendations. This approach resulted in 29 recommendations for the clinical management of haemophilia B across five topics, including product treatment choice, therapeutic agent laboratory monitoring, pharmacokinetics considerations, inhibitor management and preparing for gene therapy. It is anticipated that this clinical practice framework will complement existing guidelines in the management of people with haemophilia B in routine clinical practice and could be adapted and applied across different regions and countries.