Cargando…
A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management
Background: Prophylaxis with factor (F)VIII is considered the optimal treatment for managing hemophilia A patients without inhibitors. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of two prophylaxis regimens (primary outcome) and of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments (secondary outcome), and to continue th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3488301/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22212248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04611.x |
_version_ | 1782248597499150336 |
---|---|
author | VALENTINO, L A MAMONOV, V HELLMANN, A QUON, D V CHYBICKA, A SCHROTH, P PATRONE, L WONG, W-Y |
author_facet | VALENTINO, L A MAMONOV, V HELLMANN, A QUON, D V CHYBICKA, A SCHROTH, P PATRONE, L WONG, W-Y |
author_sort | VALENTINO, L A |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Prophylaxis with factor (F)VIII is considered the optimal treatment for managing hemophilia A patients without inhibitors. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of two prophylaxis regimens (primary outcome) and of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments (secondary outcome), and to continue the evaluation of immunogenicity and overall safety of the ADVATE Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), Plasma/Albumin Free Method (rAHF-PFM). Patients/Methods: Previously on-demand-treated patients aged 7–59 years (n = 66) with FVIII levels ≤ 2% received 6 months of on-demand treatment and then were randomized to 12 months of either standard (20–40 IU kg(−1) every other day) or pharmacokinetic (PK)-tailored (20–80 IU kg(−1) every third day) prophylaxis, both regimens intended to maintain FVIII trough levels at or above 1%. Efficacy was evaluated in terms of annualized bleeding rates (ABRs). As subjects were first treated on-demand and then on prophylaxis, statistical comparisons between these treatments were paired. Results: Twenty-two (33.3%) subjects on prophylaxis experienced no bleeding episodes, whereas none treated on-demand were free from an episode of bleeding. ABRs for the two prophylaxis regimens were comparable, whereas differences between on-demand and either prophylaxis were statistically significant (P < 0.0001): median (interquartile range [IQR]) ABRs were 43.9 (21.9), 1.0 (3.5), 2.0 (6.9) and 1.1 (4.9) during on-demand treatment, standard, PK-tailored and any prophylaxis, respectively. There were no differences in FVIII consumption or adverse event rates between prophylaxis regimens. No subject developed FVIII inhibitors. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates comparable safety and effectiveness for two prophylaxis regimens and that prophylaxis significantly reduces bleeding compared with on-demand treatment. PK-tailored prophylaxis offers an alternative to standard prophylaxis for the prevention of bleeding. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3488301 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34883012012-11-05 A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management VALENTINO, L A MAMONOV, V HELLMANN, A QUON, D V CHYBICKA, A SCHROTH, P PATRONE, L WONG, W-Y J Thromb Haemost Original Article Background: Prophylaxis with factor (F)VIII is considered the optimal treatment for managing hemophilia A patients without inhibitors. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of two prophylaxis regimens (primary outcome) and of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments (secondary outcome), and to continue the evaluation of immunogenicity and overall safety of the ADVATE Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), Plasma/Albumin Free Method (rAHF-PFM). Patients/Methods: Previously on-demand-treated patients aged 7–59 years (n = 66) with FVIII levels ≤ 2% received 6 months of on-demand treatment and then were randomized to 12 months of either standard (20–40 IU kg(−1) every other day) or pharmacokinetic (PK)-tailored (20–80 IU kg(−1) every third day) prophylaxis, both regimens intended to maintain FVIII trough levels at or above 1%. Efficacy was evaluated in terms of annualized bleeding rates (ABRs). As subjects were first treated on-demand and then on prophylaxis, statistical comparisons between these treatments were paired. Results: Twenty-two (33.3%) subjects on prophylaxis experienced no bleeding episodes, whereas none treated on-demand were free from an episode of bleeding. ABRs for the two prophylaxis regimens were comparable, whereas differences between on-demand and either prophylaxis were statistically significant (P < 0.0001): median (interquartile range [IQR]) ABRs were 43.9 (21.9), 1.0 (3.5), 2.0 (6.9) and 1.1 (4.9) during on-demand treatment, standard, PK-tailored and any prophylaxis, respectively. There were no differences in FVIII consumption or adverse event rates between prophylaxis regimens. No subject developed FVIII inhibitors. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates comparable safety and effectiveness for two prophylaxis regimens and that prophylaxis significantly reduces bleeding compared with on-demand treatment. PK-tailored prophylaxis offers an alternative to standard prophylaxis for the prevention of bleeding. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3488301/ /pubmed/22212248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04611.x Text en © 2011 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions set out at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/onlineopen#OnlineOpen_Terms |
spellingShingle | Original Article VALENTINO, L A MAMONOV, V HELLMANN, A QUON, D V CHYBICKA, A SCHROTH, P PATRONE, L WONG, W-Y A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management |
title | A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management |
title_full | A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management |
title_fullStr | A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management |
title_short | A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management |
title_sort | randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia a management |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3488301/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22212248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04611.x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT valentinola arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT mamonovv arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT hellmanna arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT quondv arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT chybickaa arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT schrothp arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT patronel arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT wongwy arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT arandomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT valentinola randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT mamonovv randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT hellmanna randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT quondv randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT chybickaa randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT schrothp randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT patronel randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT wongwy randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement AT randomizedcomparisonoftwoprophylaxisregimensandapairedcomparisonofondemandandprophylaxistreatmentsinhemophiliaamanagement |