The Impact of Recombinant Versus Plasma-Derived Factor VIII Concentrates on Inhibitor Development in Previously Untreated Patients With Hemophilia A: A 2021 Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hemophilia A, the most common hereditary disorder, is caused by clotting factor deficiency. Challenges encountered in the current treatment of hemophilia A [factor VIII (FVIII) replacement therapy] due to inhibitor development have caused ineffective treatment as well as morbidity and mortality among patients. However, there are no studies comparing the two types of FVIII treatments in terms of inhibitor development rate. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review to devise a better treatment option with a lower risk of inhibitor development. The systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and by searching several databases. Data extraction on study characteristics and outcomes was conducted. Reviewers also conducted a risk of bias assessment on all studies. All eligible studies for quantitative analysis were then processed using RevMan 5.4.1 and the data was extrapolated into cumulative outcomes and expressed in forest and funnel plots. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, involving a total of 2,531 hemophilia A patients who were followed up from birth until death. A higher incidence of inhibitor development was found to be associated with recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) [odds ratio (OR)=1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95-2.59; hazard ratio (HR)=1.89, 95% CI: 1.15-3.12]. The same trend was also found for high-responding inhibitors (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 0.70-2.70; HR=1.42, 95% CI: 0.84-2.39). rFVIII is associated with a higher risk of overall and high-responding inhibitor development compared to plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII).
Effects of replacement therapies with clotting factors in patients with hemophilia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
PloS one. 2022;17(1):e0262273
BACKGROUND Different prophylactic and episodic clotting factor treatments are used in the management of hemophilia. A summarize of the evidence is needed inform decision-making. OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. METHODS We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Central Cochrane Library, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to December 2020, which compared different factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225857). RESULTS Nine RCTs were included in this review, of which six compared episodic with prophylactic treatment, all of them performed in patients with hemophilia A. Pooled results showed that, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (ratio of means [RM]: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.36), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.13). With significant difference between these subgroups (p = 0.003, I2 = 82.9%). In addition, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized joint bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.27), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.16). Without significant subgroup differences. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes according to GRADE methodology. The other studies compared different types of clotting factor concentrates (CFCs), assessed pharmacokinetic prophylaxis, or compared different frequencies of medication administration. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that prophylactic treatment (at either low, intermediate, or high doses) is superior to episodic treatment for bleeding prevention. In patients with hemophilia A, the bleeding rate seems to have a dose-response effect. However, no study compared different doses of prophylactic treatment, and all results had a very low certainty of the evidence. Thus, future studies are needed to confirm these results and inform decision making.
Recombinant FVIIa in elective non-orthopaedic surgery of adults with haemophilia and inhibitors: A systematic literature review
Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia. 2021
AIM: To assess available evidence on the use of rFVIIa in non-orthopaedic surgery including dental surgery in adult patients with congenital haemophilia with inhibitors (PWHI). METHODS A systematic literature search was performed according to a prespecified search string; prespecified criteria were used to select applicable studies including PWHI ≥18 years of age who underwent any non-orthopaedic surgery using rFVIIa. RESULTS Thirty-three publications met the eligibility criteria, of which 26 publications - including 46 procedures in 44 patients - were selected for the qualitative analysis. Most publications were case reports or case series (21/26). Primary authors assessed rFVIIa as effective in maintaining haemostasis during and after most major surgeries (22/32). rFVIIa dose was mainly on label, with higher doses used in 4 cases, and a lower dose in 1 case. Duration of treatment was mostly 5-10 days (range: 3 days to 1 month post-operatively). Adverse events related to rFVIIa were rare. CONCLUSIONS Assessing non-orthopaedic surgery in this patient population is hampered by a paucity of published data; nevertheless, the current evidence indicates that rFVIIa is effective in achieving haemostasis in haemophilia patients with inhibitors undergoing elective non-orthopaedic or dental surgery. rFVIIa was generally well tolerated in these patients, with thrombotic events occurring rarely. These data, generated to help clinicians manage congenital haemophilia with inhibitors, highlight the need for more systematic reporting of rFVIIa and all other therapeutic agents in non-orthopaedic surgery and dental surgery in patients with congenital haemophilia and inhibitors.
Inhibitor in Congenital Factor VII Deficiency; a Rare but Serious Therapeutic Challenge-A Systematic Literature Review
Journal of clinical medicine. 2021;10(2)
BACKGROUND Congenital factor (F) VII deficiency is a rare coagulation factor deficiency with an estimated incidence of 1 per 500,000 individuals. Patients with severe FVII deficiency present a broad range of clinical presentations. Alloimmunization against exogenous FVII, as the main challenge of replacement therapy, is an extremely rare phenomenon that is accompanied by a high rate of life-threatening bleeding, that renders replacement therapy less effective. Due to the importance of the issue, we performed a systematic literature review in order to assess incidence, molecular basis, clinical presentations, and therapeutic challenge and management of inhibitor in congenital FVII deficiency. Strategy of search: This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We performed an English-language literature review in the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, using the following keywords: "factor VII inhibitor", "factor VII inhibitors", "FVII inhibitors", "congenital FVII deficiency", "recombinant factor VII", "anti rFVIIa", "replacement therapy", and "alloantibody". RESULTS Out of 380 patients in the 13 studies, 27 had inhibitor against FVII; 18 were male, 7 were female, while the sex of 2 was not stated. The majority (92%) developed a high-titer inhibitor (Bethesda Unit > 5). All patients had severe FVII deficiency (FVII:C < 10%), and the majority received recombinant FVII prior to inhibitor development (N: 24, 89%). Among ten patients with a detected mutation, three subjects had a common non-sense (30%), and two had a deletion (20%). CONCLUSIONS Inhibitor development is a relatively rare phenomenon seen only in severe FVII deficiency, where it is associated with severe and life-threatening presentations, treatment challenge, and economic burden on the patients and their families.
Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for prophylactic treatment in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
Background: Patients with severe hemophilia often present with painful joint and soft tissue bleeding which may restrict them from their daily activities. The current standard of care still relies on a regular prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII), which has a high daily treatment burden. Recently, rurioctocog alfa pegol, a third-generation recombinant FVIII with a modification in its polyethylene glycol (PEG) component, has been developed. Several trials have studied this synthetic drug as bleeding prophylaxis in severe hemophilia A. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A. Methods: This study was conducted in conformity with the PRISMA guidelines. Data were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wiley Online Library, and CINAHL (via EBSCOhost). Study qualities were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and Modified Jadad scales. Results: Four studies involving 517 previously treated severe hemophilia A patients were included in this study. The pooled mean of total annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and hemostatic efficacy was 2.59 (95% CI = 2.04-3.14) and 92% (95% CI = 85%-97%), respectively. Only 30 (2.3%) non-serious and one (1.4%) serious adverse events were considered related to rurioctocog alfa pegol treatment. At the end of the studies, no development of FVIII inhibitory antibodies was observed. None of the developed binding antibodies to FVIII, PEG-FVIII, or PEG was correlated to the treatment efficacy and safety. Conclusions: Despite the limited availability of direct comparison studies, our analyses indicate that rurioctocog alfa pegol could serve as a safe and effective alternative for bleeding prophylaxis in previously treated hemophilia A patients. Moreover, it appears to have low immunogenicity, which further increases the safety profile of the drug in such clinical conditions.
Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A
Journal of blood medicine. 2021;12:935-943
PURPOSE To assess the efficacy and FVIII consumption of BAY 94-9027 versus N8-GP in prophylaxis in adolescent and adult patients with severe hemophilia A (HA). PATIENTS AND METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies on the efficacy of BAY-94-9027 and N8-GP for prophylaxis in patients with HA aged ≥12 years without a history of inhibitors. Eight studies met systematic literature review inclusion criteria, but only data from PROTECT VIII on BAY 94-9027 and PATHFINDER 2 on N8-GP could be used for an indirect comparison. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison were performed. RESULTS No significant differences (unadjusted and adjusted) were observed in the mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for any bleed and proportion of patients with zero bleeds when comparing BAY 94-9027 to N8-GP. The adjusted treatment difference [incidence rate ratio (IRR)] in terms of ABR was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.85-1.44). The odds ratio (OR) of any bleed, measuring the relative effect of BAY 94-9027 versus N8-GP on the proportion of patients with zero bleeds, was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.60-1.77). FVIII consumption was significantly lower in BAY 94-9027 [mean adjusted difference=-1292.57 IU/kg/year (95% CI, ‒2152.44 to ‒432.70)]; a 26.7% reduction in consumption of BAY-94-9027. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar to the main analysis for mean ABRs, percentages of patients with zero bleeds, and significant reduction in rFVIII consumption. For patients on BAY 94-9027 every-5-days and every-7-days, no differences versus every-4-days N8-GP were observed for the mean ABR for any bleed [IRR=0.90 (95% CI, 0.68‒1.20)] and proportion of patients with zero bleeds [OR=1.06 (95% CI, 0.56‒2.02)]. CONCLUSION BAY 94-9027 prophylaxis demonstrated 26.7% lower annual consumption when compared to N8-GP with similar efficacy in terms of ABR and percentage of patients with zero bleeds.
Epidemiological Challenges in Rare Bleeding Disorders: FVIII Inhibitor Incidence in Haemophilia A Patients-A Known Issue of Unknown Origin
International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;18(1)
There is a broad range of factor products approved in Germany for haemophilia A treatment. Since the introduction of recombinant coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) products in the 1990s, there has been substantial debate whether there is a difference in inhibitor incidence between single FVIII products or product classes. Neither haemophilia registries nor clinical studies, including a randomised controlled clinical trial, provided a consistent and definite answer. The reasons were mainly related to methodological challenges in conducting controlled studies in a rare disease. In this analysis, the most relevant epidemiological challenges and main problems were examined, including study bias, potential overlap of individual studies and advanced development of therapy and methods in the course of time. Meta-analyses on two levels showed that therapies using recombinant products resulted in different event rates when compared to plasma-derived products. These results are accompanied by substantial study heterogeneity evidenced by Cochran's Q tests. Only three studies have been identified that meet the standards of current clinical guidance. To finally resolve this ongoing and disputable safety issue of replacement therapy, collaboration among registry owners, academia and regulators must be fostered.
Use of recombinant activated factor VII for the treatment of perioperative bleeding in noncardiac surgery patients without hemophilia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Journal of critical care. 2020;62:164-171
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative use of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) in noncardiac patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved the use of rFVIIa through December 13, 2019 in noncardiac patients without hemophilia. Two investigators extracted the related data and assessed the quality of the included trials. RESULTS Eleven RCTs examining 993 perioperative patients were ultimately included. The use of rFVIIa did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR:0.90; 95% CI:0.50,1.64; I(2) = 0.0%; P = 0.738), shorten the length of ICU (SMD:-0.15; 95% CI:-0.47,0.17; I(2) = 0.0%; P = 0.346) or hospital (SMD:0.42; 95% CI:-0.05,0.89; I(2) = 0.0%; P = 0.078) stay, or increase incidence of the thromboembolic events (RR:1.30; 95% CI:0.70,2.41; I(2) = 0.0%; P = 0.403) among perioperative patients. However, individual RCT analyses showed that the use of rFVIIa could reduce the volume of blood loss (including prostatic cancer, severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), and spinal disease) and the transfusion of RBCs (including prostatic cancer, SAP, and spinal disease) and FFP (SAP) in a subset of perioperative patients. Publication bias was not present. CONCLUSIONS For perioperative hemorrhagic patients, rFVIIa-based hemostatic therapy showed no effect on mortality, ICU or hospital LOS, or the rate of thromboembolic events, although it appears to decrease blood loss and reduce the need for blood product transfusion in a subset of patients.
A systematic review evaluating the efficacy and factor consumption of long-acting recombinant factor VIII products for the prophylactic treatment of hemophilia A
Journal of medical economics. 2020;:1
Aims: Long-acting (LA) recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products with extended dosing intervals have been developed for the treatment of hemophilia A; however, no direct head-to-head trial has been conducted to compare the efficacy of these products.Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify published Phase III clinical trials of prophylactic LA rFVIII treatment in previously treated patients aged ≥12 years, with moderate-to-severe hemophilia A (endogenous FVIII levels ≤2%). Studies that did not meet these criteria, or did not report the included outcomes, were excluded. Bleeding rates and consumption were extracted and summarized; only data for the dosing frequencies indicated in the US product labels (which are similar to those indicated in the European Medicines Agency labels) were included.Results: Five articles met the inclusion criteria; these studies only included patients with severe hemophilia A. Treatment length, reported outcomes and dose (range: 20-65 IU/kg) varied between studies. Median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) (IQR) reported in the relevant studies was 1.14 (0.00, 4.30), rVIII-SingleChain 2 or 3 times weekly; 1.6 (0.0, 4.7), rFVIIIFc 2 times weekly followed by every 3-5 days; 1.9 (0.0, 5.8), BAX855 2 times weekly; 1.18 (0.00, 4.25), N8-GP every 4 days; 1.9 (0.0, 5.2) and 4.1 (2.0, 10.6), BAY 94-9027 2 times weekly for the cohort who experienced >1 or <1 bleed in the study run-in phase, respectively. Median spontaneous ABR was 0.0 across studies reporting relevant data. Reported consumption was comparable among all LA products.Limitations: The primary limitation of this systematic review was the variation in study design and not all studies reported all desired outcomes, which limited the quantity of data available.Conclusions: This systematic review identified pivotal trial data for LA rFVIII products. Real-world evidence are needed to understand how these products perform in clinical practice.
Management of direct factor Xa inhibitor-related major bleeding with prothrombin complex concentrate: a meta-analysis
Blood advances. 2019;3(2):158-167
A targeted antidote for reversal of direct factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors is now available for clinical use in the United States, but it is costly and has limited availability. In a systematic review, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) as an alternative for managing direct FXa inhibitor-related major bleeding. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to September 2018. No comparative studies were found. Ten case series with 340 patients who received PCC for direct FXa inhibitor-related major bleeding were included. The pooled proportion of patients with effective management of major bleeding was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.76) in 2 studies using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.92) in 8 studies that did not use the ISTH criteria; all-cause mortality was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.26), and thromboembolism rate was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01-0.08). On the basis of evidence with very low certainty from single-arm case series, it is difficult to determine whether 4F-PCC in addition to cessation of direct oral FXa inhibitor is more effective than cessation of direct oral FXa inhibitor alone in patients with direct FXa inhibitor-related major bleeding.