Real-World Effectiveness of rFIXFc Prophylaxis in Patients with Haemophilia B Switched from Standard Half-Life Therapy in Three European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: The current study describes real-world clinical outcomes and factor usage among patients with haemophilia B switching from standard half-life factor IX (SHL FIX) treatment to recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) prophylaxis in European treatment centres. METHODS: This non-interventional, retrospective, multicentre chart review evaluated medical records from adult and paediatric patients with haemophilia B in Denmark, Germany and the UK. Patients had documented SHL FIX treatment, on-demand or prophylaxis, for ≥ 6 months before starting rFIXFc prophylaxis, and subsequent data for ≥ 6 months afterwards (up to 24 months). Primary endpoints included annualised bleeding rates (ABRs), prophylactic factor consumption and injection frequency. RESULTS: Data from 30 patients (24/30 [80.0%] with severe disease) showed overall mean (standard deviation, SD) ABRs of 4.7 (6.3) on SHL FIX treatment and 1.7 (2.3) after switching to rFIXFc prophylaxis. The reduction in mean (SD) ABRs was greater when switching from SHL FIX on-demand treatment (n = 6), with a decrease from 10.5 (9.9) to 2.6 (4.5), than when switching from SHL FIX prophylaxis (n = 24), with a decrease from 3.3 (4.3) to 1.5 (1.4). Among prior SHL FIX prophylaxis patients, switching to rFIXFc prophylaxis increased the proportion of those with zero bleeds from 21.7% to 45.8% during the 6 months before and after switching, respectively. In the total population, five of six target joints (83.3%) present when patients started rFIXFc prophylaxis subsequently resolved. In patients switching from SHL FIX prophylaxis to rFIXFc prophylaxis, mean (SD) weekly injection frequency was reduced by 1.0 (0.7) and mean (SD) factor consumption was reduced by 27.7 (49.6) IU/kg/week. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of rFIXFc prophylaxis in real-world clinical practice. Improvements in both clinical effectiveness and factor usage associated with rFIXFc prophylaxis may potentially reduce patient burden and improve quality of life.

Recombinant FVIIIFc Versus BAY 94-9027 for Treatment of Patients with Haemophilia A: Comparative Efficacy Using a Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) is the current standard of care for haemophilia A. Several approaches have been used to extend the half-life of rFVIII to improve prophylaxis outcomes. An indirect comparison of pivotal clinical trial data was performed to evaluate the relative efficacy of two extended half-life therapies approved for the prophylactic treatment of haemophilia A: recombinant FVIII-IgG1 Fc domain fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) and pegylated rFVIII (BAY 94-9027). METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to compare the rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis arm of the A-LONG phase III clinical trial (n = 117) and the BAY 94-9027 approved dosing regimens of the PROTECT VIII phase II/III study (n = 110). Following matching for baseline characteristics, mean annualised bleeding rate (ABR) and the proportion of patients with zero bleeds were compared for rFVIIIFc and BAY 94-9027. Additional supportive analyses comparing rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis and the individual prophylaxis regimens included in the PROTECT VIII group (twice weekly, and every 5 and 7 days [Q5D and Q7D]) were conducted. RESULTS: Mean ABR was lower in the rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis group versus the BAY 94-9027 pooled prophylaxis population (3.0 versus 4.9), providing a clinically relevant and statistically significant difference (mean difference [MD] - 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 3.5 to - 0.4). A statistically significant difference in ABR was also observed for rFVIIIFc compared with BAY 94-9027 Q7D (3.2 versus 6.4; MD - 3.3; 95% CI - 6.4 to - 0.2). The difference in the proportion of patients with zero bleeds between rFVIIIFc (46.5%) and BAY 94-9027 pooled prophylaxis population (38.2%) was not statistically significant (odds ratio 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.5). CONCLUSIONS: This indirect treatment comparison indicates a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in ABR favouring individualised prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc versus BAY 94-9027 prophylaxis. The proportion of patients with zero bleeds was numerically greater with rFVIIIFc treatment but did not achieve statistical significance.