Disease and treatment burden of patients with haemophilia entering the explorer6 non-interventional study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterise baseline disease and treatment burden in a large population with haemophilia A/B, both with (HAwI/HBwI) and without (HA/HB) inhibitors. 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.

Concizumab prophylaxis in persons with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors: patient-reported outcome results from the phase 3 explorer7 study.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reflect patient perceptions of disease and treatment and are important for evaluating new therapies. Objectives: Evaluate the effects of once-daily concizumab prophylaxis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), treatment burden, and treatment preference in males aged ≥12 years with hemophilia A/B with inhibitors. Methods: Patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label explorer7 phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04083781) were randomized to receive no prophylaxis (arm 1) or concizumab prophylaxis (arm 2) or were nonrandomly allocated to concizumab prophylaxis (arms 3 and 4). The study included questionnaires to assess patients' perception of HRQoL (Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults), treatment burden (Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure), and treatment preference (Haemophilia Patient Preference Questionnaire). Results: The estimated treatment difference between patients receiving concizumab prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis at week 24 for Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults "total score" was -22.6 points (95% CI, -42.5; -2.7), directionally favoring patients receiving concizumab prophylaxis. For Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure "total score," the estimated treatment difference was -19.9 points (95% CI, -34.3, -5.6) in favor of concizumab vs no prophylaxis. The majority of patients receiving concizumab expressed a preference for concizumab over their previous treatment, the main reasons being "fewer bleeds," "require less time," and "less painful to inject." Across all PROs, there were less responses collected than anticipated, limiting interpretations. Conclusion: PROs collected during the explorer7 study showed improvements in some domains of HRQoL, treatment burden, and patient treatment preference in persons with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors receiving concizumab prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis.