Cargando…

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A

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 prophyl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vashi, Parth, Batt, Katharine, Klamroth, Robert, Mancuso, Maria Elisa, Majewska, Renata, Tiede, Andreas, Mantovani, Lorenzo Giovanni
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34754257
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JBM.S321288
_version_ 1784594810772914176
author Vashi, Parth
Batt, Katharine
Klamroth, Robert
Mancuso, Maria Elisa
Majewska, Renata
Tiede, Andreas
Mantovani, Lorenzo Giovanni
author_facet Vashi, Parth
Batt, Katharine
Klamroth, Robert
Mancuso, Maria Elisa
Majewska, Renata
Tiede, Andreas
Mantovani, Lorenzo Giovanni
author_sort Vashi, Parth
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8570287
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85702872021-11-08 Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A Vashi, Parth Batt, Katharine Klamroth, Robert Mancuso, Maria Elisa Majewska, Renata Tiede, Andreas Mantovani, Lorenzo Giovanni J Blood Med Original Research 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. Dove 2021-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8570287/ /pubmed/34754257 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JBM.S321288 Text en © 2021 Vashi et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Vashi, Parth
Batt, Katharine
Klamroth, Robert
Mancuso, Maria Elisa
Majewska, Renata
Tiede, Andreas
Mantovani, Lorenzo Giovanni
Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A
title Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A
title_full Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A
title_fullStr Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A
title_full_unstemmed Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A
title_short Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A
title_sort indirect treatment comparison of damoctocog alfa pegol versus turoctocog alfa pegol as prophylactic treatment in patients with hemophilia a
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34754257
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JBM.S321288
work_keys_str_mv AT vashiparth indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdamoctocogalfapegolversusturoctocogalfapegolasprophylactictreatmentinpatientswithhemophiliaa
AT battkatharine indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdamoctocogalfapegolversusturoctocogalfapegolasprophylactictreatmentinpatientswithhemophiliaa
AT klamrothrobert indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdamoctocogalfapegolversusturoctocogalfapegolasprophylactictreatmentinpatientswithhemophiliaa
AT mancusomariaelisa indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdamoctocogalfapegolversusturoctocogalfapegolasprophylactictreatmentinpatientswithhemophiliaa
AT majewskarenata indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdamoctocogalfapegolversusturoctocogalfapegolasprophylactictreatmentinpatientswithhemophiliaa
AT tiedeandreas indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdamoctocogalfapegolversusturoctocogalfapegolasprophylactictreatmentinpatientswithhemophiliaa
AT mantovanilorenzogiovanni indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdamoctocogalfapegolversusturoctocogalfapegolasprophylactictreatmentinpatientswithhemophiliaa