Clinical Evidence and Safety Profile of Emicizumab for the Management of Children with Hemophilia A

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.

Design of a Real-World Observational Study in Previously Untreated and Minimally Treated Hemophilia A Patients: Protect-NOW

Background  The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of each of Octapharma's factor VIII (FVIII) products, Nuwiq, octanate, and wilate, have been investigated in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A in prospective clinical trials. The aim of the Protect-NOW study is to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and utilization patterns of Nuwiq, octanate, and wilate in PUPs and minimally treated patients (MTPs; <5 exposure days [EDs] to FVIII concentrates or other blood products containing FVIII) with severe hemophilia A in a real-world setting. Real-world data provide valuable information that complement data obtained from interventional clinical trials. Methods  Protect-NOW (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03695978; ISRCTN identifier: 11492145) is a real-world study in PUPs and MTPs treated with either the human cell line-derived recombinant FVIII Nuwiq (simoctocog alfa) or a plasma-derived FVIII concentrate containing von Willebrand factor (octanate or wilate). It is a prospective and (partly) retrospective, observational, international, noncontrolled, noninterventional study. A total of 140 PUPs and MTPs with severe hemophilia A will be enrolled across around 50 specialized centers worldwide and followed for either 100 EDs or a maximum period of 3 years from ED1. The primary objectives are to assess effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes and overall safety, including inhibitor development. The secondary objectives are to assess utilization patterns (including dosage and frequency of administration) and the effectiveness in surgical prophylaxis. Conclusions  The Protect-NOW study will provide information on the treatment of PUPs and MTPs in routine clinical practice, which will help guide clinical decision making for treating these patients in the future.

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.

Real-world study of rurioctocog alfa pegol and emicizumab in US clinical practice among patients with hemophilia A

BACKGROUND

FVIII replacement is standard treatment for hemophilia A without inhibitors, but non-factor therapies, such as emicizumab, are changing the treatment landscape. We explore the ramifications of switching treatment.

METHODS

Pharmacy database data (July 2017-May 2020) from patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors who switched to rurioctocog alfa pegol or emicizumab prophylaxis after ≥6 months' prophylaxis with another FVIII product were analyzed for total mean weekly consumption, dosing frequency, product wastage, and ABR.

RESULTS

Post-switch mean weekly consumption of prophylactic rurioctocog alfa pegol and emicizumab were 6224 IU/kg and 109 mg, respectively. Dosing schedules for emicizumab were primarily weekly (48.2%) and every 2 weeks (40.0%). Most patients in the rurioctocog alfa pegol cohort received treatment twice-weekly (83.3%). Mean product wastage of emicizumab (8.4%) was significantly higher versus rurioctocog alfa pegol (-0.3%; P < 0.001). Mean annualized emicizumab and rurioctocog alfa pegol wastage during prophylaxis was 330.82 mg and -974.80 IU, respectively. ABR change was not significantly different (P = 0.527) for patients switching to emicizumab (-1.05) or rurioctocog alfa pegol (-1.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Bleed rates were similar for patients receiving prophylaxis with emicizumab or rurioctocog alfa pegol after switching from prophylaxis with another FVIII. However, wastage associated with dispensing inaccuracies was greater with emicizumab.

Emicizumab in children: bleeding episodes and outcome before and after transition to Emicizumab

PURPOSE

Real-world data and study data regarding therapy with Emicizumab in pediatric cohorts with haemophilia A is scarce. Especially, data on previously untreated pediatric patients (PUPs) and minimally treated patients (MTPs) are missing.

METHODS

Thirteen pediatric patients with haemophilia A and treatment with Emicizumab were retrospectively evaluated for Annual Bleeding Rates (ABR) pre-and post-Emicizumab treatment. Safety data and data on management of minor surgery as well as laboratory results were collected. Additionally, we describe the clinical features of two PUPs and one MTP that are included in our cohort.

RESULTS

Median age at initiation of Emicizumab was 5.3 (range: 0.26-17.5) years, three patients were younger than one year at initiation of treatment with Emicizumab. Median follow-up time on Emicizumab was 23.8 (range: 0.7-40) months. Total ABR (p = 0.009) as well as spontaneous (p = 0.018), traumatic (p = 0.018), and joint (p = 0.027) ABR reduced significantly post-Emicizumab transition. Safety profile was favourable as only one local site reaction occurred; no cessation of treatment was necessary. Surgery was successfully performed in three patients receiving rFVlla pre- and post-surgery. Emicizumab trough levels showed a median of 43.2 μg/ml (range: 23.9-56.8) after three doses of 3 mg/kg and 51.9 μg/ml (range: 30.4-75) at first follow-up with 1.5 mg/kg.

CONCLUSION

Emicizumab is safe and efficient in pediatric patients with and without inhibitors. More data on larger multicenter cohorts and especially on PUPs/MTPs are still needed.

Emicizumab for All Pediatric Patients with Severe Hemophilia A

Emicizumab is the first approved nonreplacement therapy for bleeding prophylaxis in hemophilia A (HA) patients. In 2018, it was licensed for HA patients with inhibitors, subsequently followed by an "European Medicines Agency (EMA)" approval for patients with severe HA in the absence of inhibitors in 2019. This is immediately raising the question whether emicizumab is suitable as a first-line treatment for all pediatric patients with severe HA. In this review, we want to discuss what we have, what we know, and what we would like to know. Severe HA is characterized by severe spontaneous and traumatic bleedings, particularly into muscles and joints leading to chronic joint damage. Standard of care is the regular, prophylactic replacement of factor VIII to prevent bleedings. Due to approval of emicizumab-the first nonreplacement therapy for bleeding prophylaxis-in HA patients with inhibitors, and severe HA patients without inhibitors, it is of pivotal interest whether emicizumab could be the first-line treatment in all pediatric patients with severe HA. Clinical trials and real-world observational studies could demonstrate a good efficacy and safety for bleeding prevention during emicizumab treatment in HA patients with and without inhibitors. This clearly indicates that emicizumab could improve HA treatment. However, some crucial and critical questions are remaining with regard to the use of emicizumab. Some of this missing information is already under investigation in the context of clinical trials. Until getting finalized data to shed insights into the points that are currently being discussed, there is a variety of expert and expert group recommendations, which are tackling questions concerning the treatment of HA patients. This review will address major information that is already available, but will also focus on important points that remain to be elucidated in the context of HA treatment.

Surgery with emicizumab prophylaxis for two paediatric patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors

Emicizumab is a prophylaxis for patients with severe haemophilia A with and without inhibitor. Despite weekly administration of emicizumab, coagulation states stay below normal value and cannot be assessed by standard haemostasis tests. In our two patients, we used the thrombin-generation assay (endogenous thrombin potential and Peak) to monitor the patient's clotting status. Under emicizumab, it is necessary to add a bypassing agent (BPA) such as rFVIIa (Novoseven) to avoid bleeding before surgery. The BPA dosage was based on a thrombin-generation assay and collegial consultation.

Optimising prophylaxis in haemophilia A: The ups and downs of treatment

The classical goals of haemophilia A treatment are to prevent bleeds, minimise the risk of long-term complications associated with joint damage, and improve quality of life by maintaining appropriate factor VIII [FVIII] levels. The dose and frequency of FVIII replacement therapies required to reduce bleeds is now known to vary amongst individuals, and may change for the same individual over time, meaning that a standardised dose and regimen may not provide optimal protection to all patients. Here we review the evolving treatment landscape for haemophilia A, and discuss how an increased understanding of the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics underlying FVIII replacement and non-factor replacement therapies could improve patient outcomes. We also review the strengths and weaknesses of current treatments and explore the benefits of personalised therapy and review how this may best be achieved with current treatment options. The key points of our review are summarised in this accompanying short video.

The availability of new drugs for hemophilia treatment

INTRODUCTION

A number of new FVIII/IX concentrates enriched the portfolio of products available for the treatment of hemophilia A/B patients. Due to the large inter-patient variability, accurate tailoring of the therapy became essential to improve patients' adherence, clinical outcomes, and cost/effectiveness ratio. Recently, non-replacement therapies have taken the limelight and succeeded in decreasing the bleedings of patients.

AREAS COVERED

The PK characteristics, efficacy, and safety of the new rFVIII and rFIX concentrates and of non-replacement therapy, are reported in detail in the published clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Outstanding improvements of rFIX concentrates' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have allowed to reduce the bleedings in hemophilia B patients, in order to increase their adherence to prophylaxis and quality of life. Less significant are the effects of pegylation or Fc fusion on the pharmacokinetics of the new rFVIII concentrates. The new non-replacement therapy is achieving the favor of many treaters and patients, in particular those with Factor VIII inhibitors. Great attention must be paid to the dangerous synergy of APCC and emicizumab, responsible for some fatal events during the clinical trials and compassionate use of this drug. So far, replacement therapy should be the standard of care for hemophilia patients without inhibitors or difficulties in venous access.