1.
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
Kohar K, Prayogo SA, Wiyono L
Cureus. 2022;14(6):e26015
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
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).
PICO Summary
Population
Children and adults with haemophilia A (9 studies, n= 2,531).
Intervention
Plasma-derived factor VIII.
Comparison
Recombinant factor VIII.
Outcome
Most of the included participants in the studies were children. A higher incidence of inhibitor development was found to be associated with recombinant factor VIII (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). Recombinant factor VIII was associated with a higher risk of overall and high-responding inhibitor development compared to plasma-derived factor VIII.
2.
Effects of replacement therapies with clotting factors in patients with hemophilia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Delgado-Flores CJ, GarcĂa-Gomero D, Salvador-Salvador S, Montes-Alvis J, Herrera-Cunti C, Taype-Rondan A
PloS one. 2022;17(1):e0262273
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
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.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with haemophilia (9 randomised controlled trials).
Intervention
Factor replacement therapy: prophylactic treatment.
Comparison
Other factor replacement therapies: episodic, tailored, or other therapies.
Outcome
Six studies compared episodic with prophylactic treatment in patients with haemophilia 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. Compared to the episodic treatment, the annualized joint bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic treatment (RM: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic (RM of 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.27), and high-dose prophylactic (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, assessed pharmacokinetic prophylaxis, or compared different frequencies of medication administration.