Back to Search Results

Continuous prophylaxis with recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein and conventional recombinant factor IX products: comparisons of efficacy and weekly factor consumption

McMaster University, Hamilton, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada; Biogen, 14 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, USA; Sobi , SE-112 76 Stockholm, Sweden; University of Copenhagen, Norregade 10, 1165 Copenhagen, Denmark; Analysis Group, 111 Huntington Avenue, Fourteenth Floor , Boston, MA, 02119, USA.

Journal of Medical Economics. 2016;:1-30
Full text from:

Other resources

Abstract
BACKGROUND Continuous prophylaxis for patients with hemophilia B requires frequent injections that are burdensome and that may lead to suboptimal adherence and outcomes. Hence, therapies requiring less-frequent injections are needed. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we compared the first extended-half-life-recombinant factor IX (rFIX) product- recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) - with conventional rFIX products based on annualized bleed rates (ABRs) and factor consumption reported in studies of continuous prophylaxis. METHODS We compared ABRs and weekly factor consumption rates in clinical studies of continuous prophylaxis treatment with rFIXFc and conventional rFIX products (identified by systematic literature review) in previously-treated adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe hemophilia B. Meta-analysis was used to pool ABRs reported for conventional rFIX products for comparison. Comparisons of weekly factor consumption were based on the mean, reported or estimated from the mean dose per injection. RESULTS Five conventional rFIX studies (injections 1 to >3 times/week) met the criteria for comparison with once-weekly rFIXFc reported by the B-LONG study. The pooled mean ABR for conventional rFIX was slightly higher than but comparable to rFIXFc (difference = 0.71; P = 0.210). Weekly factor consumption was significantly lower with rFIXFc than in conventional rFIX studies (difference in means = 42.8-74.5 IU/kg/week [93-161%], P<0.001). CONCLUSION Comparisons of clinical study results suggest weekly injections with rFIXFc result in similar bleeding rates and significantly lower weekly factor consumption compared with more-frequently-injected conventional rFIX products. The real-world effectiveness of rFIXFc may be higher based on results from a model of the impact of simulated differences in adherence.
Study details
Study Design : Economic Study
Language : English
Credits : Bibliographic data from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine