Search

Fitusiran, a subcutaneous investigational small interfering RNA therapeutic, targets antithrombin to rebalance haemostasis in people with haemophilia A or haemophilia B, irrespective of inhibitor status. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fitusiran prophylaxis in people with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors. This multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study was done at 26 sites (primarily secondary or tertiary centres) in 12 countries. Men, boys, and young adults aged 12 years or older with severe haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors previously treated with on-demand bypassing agents were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis (fitusiran prophylaxis group) or to continue with bypassing agents on-demand (bypassing agents on-demand group) for 9 months. The primary endpoint was mean annualised bleeding rate during the efficacy period in the intention-to-treat population estimated by negative binomial model. Safety was assessed as a secondary endpoint in the safety population. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03417102. Between Feb 14, 2018, and June 23, 2021, 85 participants were screened for inclusion, of whom 57 (67%; 57 [100%] men; median age 27·0 years [IQR 19·5–33·5]) were randomly assigned: 19 (33%) participants to the bypassing agent on-demand group and 38 (67%) participants to the fitusiran prophylaxis. Negative binomial model-based mean annualised bleeding rate was significantly lower in the fitusiran prophylaxis group (1·7 [95% CI 1·0–2·7]) than in the bypassing agents on-demand group (18·1 [10·6–30·8]), corresponding to a 90·8% (95% CI 80·8–95·6) reduction in annualised bleeding rate in favour of fitusiran prophylaxis (p<0·0001). 25 (66%) participants had zero treated bleeds in the fitusiran prophylaxis group versus one (5%) in the bypassing agents on-demand group. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event in the fitusiran prophylaxis group was increased alanine aminotransferase in 13 (32%) of 41 participants in the safety population; there were no increased alanine aminotransferase treatment-emergent adverse events in the bypassing agents on-demand group. Suspected or confirmed thromboembolic events were reported in two (5%) participants in the fitusiran prophylaxis group. No deaths were reported. Subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis resulted in statistically significant reductions in annualised bleeding rate in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors, with two-thirds of participants having zero bleeds. Fitusiran prophylaxis might show haemostatic efficacy in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors; therefore, the therapeutic might have the potential to improve the management of people with haemophilia. Sanofi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Challenges with personalised prophylaxis in haemophilia remain, including designing unique dosing schedules that require continual adjustments and monitoring using complex sampling procedures. Aim: To assess long‐term efficacy and pharmacokinetic outcomes with fixed‐dose N8‐GP prophylaxis. Methods: Descriptive analyses were performed on data from the pathfinder 2 and pathfinder 5 trials of patients with severe haemophilia A. Bleed frequency and reoccurrence were assessed in relation to several clinical criteria of interest. Bleed risk relative to time since last dose was assessed using calculated annualised bleeding rate (ABR). Long‐term ABR and mean factor VIII (FVIII) trough levels were assessed in patients who received consistent N8‐GP prophylaxis every 4 days (Q4D). Results: During pathfinder 2, 117/136 patients with study‐drug exposure of ≥600 days experienced bleeding episodes; 8.6% of bleeds were reoccurring bleeds; bleed reoccurrence decreased over time. For patients who received consistent Q4D prophylaxis across the trial (n = 61), mean ABR decreased from 3.5 bleeds/year (Year 1) to 1.6 bleeds/year (Year 6); mean FVIII trough levels stabilised at approximately 5% (Year 6). Across patients who received prophylaxis at some point during pathfinder 2 (n = 177), 125/126 (99%) reoccurring bleeds were joint bleeds. For patients receiving Q4D prophylaxis, bleeding risk generally increased as the time since the last prophylaxis dose increased. A similar reduction in ABR and stabilisation of trough level was observed in pathfinder 5. Conclusion: Long‐term exposure (> 5 years) to fixed‐dose N8‐GP prophylaxis resulted in a protective haemostatic effect, with reduction in bleed frequency and reoccurrence, and stabilisation of FVIII trough level over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Emicizumab has been shown to be safe and effective for prevention of bleeds in patients with severe haemophilia A (SHA), both with and without inhibitors. The subcutaneous administration and long half‐life make emicizumab an attractive option for prophylaxis in infants with SHA, however data to inform treatment decisions in this younger age group are almost absent. Aim: The aim of this report is to share real world experience to illustrate how the availability of emicizumab has shifted the prophylaxis paradigm in the management of infants with SHA. Method: We selected four cases from our own cohort of infants with SHA to outline the rationale for emicizumab prophylaxis in a range of scenarios familiar to paediatric haemophilia treaters. Results: In Case 1 emicizumab was commenced at 7 days following initial treatment of neonatal ICH with a FVIII infusion. In Case 2 emicizumab was commenced at 5 weeks due to parental anxiety regarding the potential for ICH during infancy. Case 3 commenced emicizumab at 15 months in lieu of standard primary prophylaxis. Case 4 switched to emicizumab prophylaxis at 14 months after a period of primary prophylaxis with FVIII concentrates to alleviate parental anxiety regarding future inhibitor development. No patient had any bleeding events after commencement of emicizumab (median follow up 12 months), and no drug‐related adverse effects were observed. Conclusion: Despite the paucity of data in infants with SHA the potential role of emicizumab prophylaxis should be discussed with families when clinically relevant, with decisions tailored to individual need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prophylaxis with replacement factor IX (FIX) reduces bleeding frequency and improves quality of life in haemophilia B patients. With prophylaxis, the likelihood of bleeding is lowered with increasing trough levels. New products with extended half‐life (EHL) can maintain high factor activity levels over prolonged periods, compared with standard FIX products. Aim: To evaluate the safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of the new recombinant FIX EHL product, nonacog beta pegol (N9‐GP), using pooled data, with a focus on—but not limited to—prophylaxis at 40 IU/kg. Methods: N9‐GP has been investigated in males with congenital haemophilia B and FIX activity ≤2% in the paradigm™ clinical trial programme. This analysis includes pooled data from five completed paradigm™ trials conducted in previously treated adults, adolescents and children, focusing on results of prophylaxis with 40 IU/kg once‐weekly intravenous dosing. Results: In total, 115 previously treated patients were exposed to N9‐GP. Of 54 patients (47%) treated with N9‐GP 40 IU/kg once‐weekly prophylaxis, 72% experienced no spontaneous bleeds over 1 year. In all patients receiving 40 IU/kg once‐weekly, median overall annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 1.03 (interquartile range 0.00; 2.89); median spontaneous ABR was 0.00 (0.00; 0.80). No patients developed inhibitors. Estimated mean steady‐state trough levels with N9‐GP 40 IU/kg once‐weekly were ≥15% overall; 27.3% in adolescents and adults. Conclusion: N9‐GP 40 IU/kg once‐weekly was well tolerated and effective in preventing bleeding, maintaining mean FIX activity levels ≥15% across all age groups. N9‐GP may provide a new treatment option for preventing bleeding in haemophilia B patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Paradigm™4 was an international extension trial investigating the safety and efficacy of nonacog beta pegol, a recombinant glycoPEGylated factor IX (FIX) with extended half-life, in haemophilia B patients (FIX activity ≤ 2%; aged 13–70 years) who had previously participated in phase III pivotal (paradigm™2) or surgery (paradigm™3) trials. Methods Patients chose to continue treatment with nonacog beta pegol in either one of two once-weekly prophylaxis arms (10 IU/kg or 40 IU/kg), or an on-demand arm (40 IU/kg for mild/moderate bleeds; 80 IU/kg for severe bleeds). The primary objective was to evaluate immunogenicity; key secondary objectives included assessing safety and haemostatic efficacy in the treatment and prevention of bleeds. Results Seventy-one patients received prophylaxis or on-demand treatment. No patient developed an inhibitor and no safety concerns were identified. The success rate for the treatment of reported bleeds was 94.6%; most (87.9%) resolved with one injection. The median annualised bleeding rate for patients on prophylaxis was 1.36 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.00–2.23) and 1.00 (IQR 0.00–2.03) for the 10 and 40 IU/kg treatment arms, respectively. The mean FIX activity trough achieved for 10 and 40 IU once weekly was 9.8% and 21.3%, respectively. Fourteen patients on prophylaxis underwent 23 minor surgical procedures; haemostatic perioperative outcomes for all of those evaluated were ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Conclusions Nonacog beta pegol showed a favourable tolerability profile (with no safety issues identified) with good prophylactic protection and control of bleeding in previously treated adult and adolescent haemophilia B patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: Hemophilia patients with inhibitors have frequent bleeding episodes and often develop hemophilic arthropathy which is in contradistinction to non-inhibitor patients for whom prophylaxis prevents joint disease. Recently, two prospective trials have demonstrated that secondary prophylaxis with bypassing agents in inhibitor patients offers benefit by reducing bleeding episodes. This report describes the clinical experience of secondary prophylaxis in a large population of inhibitor patients. Patients/Methods: This retrospective, observational study was performed by abstracting data from medical records of patients in whom secondary prophylaxis with rFVIIa was prescribed. Data were collected by professional medical record abstractors and included patient demographics, dosing regimens, bleeding events, and healthcare resource utilization. Data analysis was descriptive and included sensitivity analyses. Results: Data from 86 patients from 14 countries were collected. The primary outcome measure (% reduction in bleeding) was 46% (95% CI, -54.0 to −38.2) in patients with at least one bleeding episodes prior to starting prophylaxis and 52% (95% CI, -60.7 to −43.3) in patients with at least one bleeding episode per month prior to starting prophylaxis. A variety of subanalyses were performed, including among age and bleed location; the results for pediatric patients, adults, target and non-target joint bleeds categorizations were similar to the overall primary outcome. Conclusions: The results in this large observational study are similar to those from the previously reported prospective study of prophylaxis with rFVIIa in inhibitor positive patients, although this study represents a more typical inhibitor population who utilized prophylaxis in the clinical setting. As such, prophylaxis should be considered a potentially effective therapy in hemophilia patients with inhibitors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Emicizumab (ACE910) bridges activated factor IX and factor X to restore the function of activated factor VIII, which is deficient in persons with hemophilia A. This phase 3, multicenter trial assessed once-weekly subcutaneous emicizumab prophylaxis in persons with hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.Methods: We enrolled participants who were 12 years of age or older. Those who had previously received episodic treatment with bypassing agents were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to emicizumab prophylaxis (group A) or no prophylaxis (group B). The primary end point was the difference in bleeding rates between group A and group B. Participants who had previously received prophylactic treatment with bypassing agents received emicizumab prophylaxis in group C.Results: A total of 109 male participants with hemophilia A with inhibitors were enrolled. The annualized bleeding rate was 2.9 events (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 5.0) among participants who were randomly assigned to emicizumab prophylaxis (group A, 35 participants) versus 23.3 events (95% CI, 12.3 to 43.9) among those assigned to no prophylaxis (group B, 18 participants), representing a significant difference of 87% in favor of emicizumab prophylaxis (P<0.001). A total of 22 participants in group A (63%) had zero bleeding events, as compared with 1 participant (6%) in group B. Among 24 participants in group C who had participated in a noninterventional study, emicizumab prophylaxis resulted in a bleeding rate that was significantly lower by 79% than the rate with previous bypassing-agent prophylaxis (P<0.001). Overall, 198 adverse events were reported in 103 participants receiving emicizumab prophylaxis; the most frequent events were injection-site reactions (in 15% of participants). Thrombotic microangiopathy and thrombosis were reported in 2 participants each (in the primary analysis) who had received multiple infusions of activated prothrombin complex concentrate for breakthrough bleeding. No antidrug antibodies were detected.Conclusions: Emicizumab prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower rate of bleeding events than no prophylaxis among participants with hemophilia A with inhibitors. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical; HAVEN 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02622321 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Haemophilia A and B are hereditary haemorrhagic disorders characterised by deficiency or dysfunction of coagulation protein factors VIII and IX, respectively. Recurrent joint and muscle bleeds lead to severe and progressive musculoskeletal damage. Existing treatment relies on replacement therapy with clotting factors, either at the time of bleeding (ie, on demand) or as part of a prophylactic schedule. The major complication of such therapy is the development of neutralising antibodies (ie, inhibitors), which is most frequent in haemophilia A. Treatment might improve considerably with the availability of new modified drugs, which might overcome existing prophylaxis limitations by reducing dosing frequency and thereby rendering therapy less distressing for the patient. Subcutaneous administration of some new therapies would also simplify prophylaxis in children with poor venous access. Gene therapy has the potential for a definitive cure, and important results have been obtained in haemophilia B. Despite improvements in haemophilia care, the availability of clotting factor concentrates for all affected individuals worldwide remains the biggest challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]