OBJECTIVES: To characterize the formation of anti-vatreptacog alfa ADAs in hemophilia patients with inhibitors.
METHODS/PATIENTS: This was a post hoc analysis of adept(™) 2. Immunoglobulin isotype determination, specificity analysis of rFVIIa cross-reactive antibodies, epitope mapping of rFVIIa single mutant analogs and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiling were performed to characterize the ADAs.
RESULTS: Immunoglobulin isotyping indicated that the ADAs were of the immunoglobulin G subtype. In epitope mapping, none of the rFVIIa single mutant analogs (V158D, E296V or M298Q) contained the complete antibody epitope, confirming that the antibodies were specific for vatreptacog alfa. In two patients, for whom PK profiling was performed both before and after the development of ADAs, vatreptacog alfa showed a prolonged elimination phase following ADA development. During the follow-up evaluation, the rFVIIa cross-reactivity disappeared after the last vatreptacog alfa exposure, despite continued exposure to rFVIIa as part of standard care.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from the vatreptacog alfa phase III trial demonstrate that the specific changes made, albeit relatively small, to the FVIIa molecule alter its clinical immunogenicity.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this extension study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of rVIII-SingleChain prophylaxis in ≥200 previously treated patients (PTPs) with hemophilia A with ≥100 exposure days (EDs).
METHODS: In total, 222 patients were enrolled, of which 204 rolled over from prior rVIII-SingleChain studies. The median age was 21 years (range, 2-65 years), including 155 patients ≥12 years and 67 patients <12 years. Patients continued with their previously assigned dose and regimen, or switched at the investigator's discretion. Patients were treated for a mean duration of 31 months (range, 1-47 months), the mean ED was 342 (standard deviation, 135.5), and 212 (95.5%) patients achieved >100 EDs. When the study ended, most patients were on either a prophylaxis regimen of 34.9 (17-62) IU/kg, 3×/week (N = 88; 39.6%), or 37.2 (13-65) IU/kg, 2×/week regimen (N = 72; 32.4%).
RESULTS: Hemostatic efficacy was rated excellent or good in 87.1% of assessed bleeds. The median (range) annualized bleeding rate was 1.21 (0.0-42.6), and the annualized spontaneous bleeding rate (AsBR) was 0.32 (0.0-33.0) for prophylaxis regimens. Median AsBR was similar for patients treated 3×/week and 2×/week (0.31 and 0.30, respectively). Surgical hemostatic efficacy was rated excellent or good in 100% of surgeries. No inhibitors, anaphylactic reactions, or thromboembolic events were reported in PTPs.
CONCLUSION: These results confirm the safety and efficacy of rVIII-SingleChain as a long-term prophylaxis treatment modality for PTPs with severe hemophilia A.
METHODS: Patients chose to continue treatment with nonacog beta pegol in either one of two once-weekly prophylaxis arms (10IU/kg or 40IU/kg), or an on-demand arm (40IU/kg for mild/moderate bleeds; 80IU/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 40IU/kg treatment arms, respectively. The mean FIX activity trough achieved for 10 and 40IU 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.
METHODS: The prospective, non-interventional explorer6 study included patients ≥12 years old with severe HA, severe/moderate HB or HAwI/HBwI of any severity, treated according to local standard of care (excluding previous/current exposure to concizumab or emicizumab). Baseline characteristics and historical clinical data were collected and patient-reported outcomes, including treatment burden, were assessed.
RESULTS: The explorer6 study enrolled 231 patients with haemophilia (84 HAwI/HBwI) from 33 countries. At baseline, patients with HA/HB treated with prophylaxis had the lowest median annualised bleeding rates (ABRs; 2.0), irrespective of haemophilia type; of these patients, 27.5% (HA) and 31.4% (HB) had target joints. Patients with HAwI/HBwI treated episodically reported the highest treatment burden. Of these patients, 28.5% (HAwI) and 25.1% (HBwI) performed sports activities in the month before screening.
CONCLUSION: Despite receiving routine clinical care, historical and baseline information from patients enrolled in explorer6 showed that patients with HA/HB treated episodically and patients with HAwI/HBwI had higher ABRs, higher treatment burden and participated in sports less than those with HA/HB treated with prophylaxis. Emerging treatments could be beneficial in addressing these unmet medical needs.
METHODS: We conducted the explorer7 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of concizumab in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (group 1) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (group 2) or were nonrandomly assigned to receive concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (groups 3 and 4). After a treatment pause due to nonfatal thromboembolic events in three patients receiving concizumab, including one from the explorer7 trial, concizumab therapy was restarted with a loading dose of 1.0 mg per kilogram of body weight, followed by 0.2 mg per kilogram daily (potentially adjusted on the basis of concizumab plasma concentration as measured at week 4). The primary end-point analysis compared treated spontaneous and traumatic bleeding episodes in group 1 and group 2. Safety, patient-reported outcomes, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were also assessed.
RESULTS: Of 133 enrolled patients, 19 were randomly assigned to group 1 and 33 to group 2; the remaining 81 were assigned to groups 3 and 4. The estimated mean annualized bleeding rate in group 1 was 11.8 episodes (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 19.9), as compared with 1.7 episodes (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.9) in group 2 (rate ratio, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.29]; P<0.001). The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients receiving concizumab (groups 2, 3, and 4) was 0 episodes. No thromboembolic events were reported after concizumab therapy was restarted. The plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, the annualized bleeding rate was lower with concizumab prophylaxis than with no prophylaxis. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; explorer7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04083781.).