RESUMEN
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Until recently, the treatment of people with hemophilia A and inhibitors (PwHAi) was based on the use of bypassing agents (BPA). However, the advent of emicizumab as prophylaxis has demonstrated promising results. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on BPA and those on emicizumab prophylaxis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of interventions and meta-analysis conducted at the Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil. METHODS: The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS databases were searched on February 21, 2023. Two authors conducted the literature search, publication selection, and data extraction. The selected publications evaluated the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on emicizumab prophylaxis and those on BPA prophylaxis. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for treated bleeds. RESULTS: Five publications (56 PwHAi) were selected from the 543 retrieved records. Overall, bleeding endpoints were lower during emicizumab prophylaxis than during BPA prophylaxis. All the publications had at least one risk of bias. The only common parameter for the meta-analysis was the ABR for treated bleeds. During emicizumab prophylaxis, the ABR for treated bleeds was lower than during BPA prophylaxis (standard mean difference: −1.58; 95% confidence interval −2.50, −0.66, P = 0.0008; I2 = 68.4%, P = 0.0031). CONCLUSION: Emicizumab was superior to BPA in bleeding prophylaxis in PwHAi. However, both the small population size and potential risk of bias should be considered when evaluating these results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42021278726, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278726.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Emicizumab is a monoclonal antibody approved for prophylaxis against bleeds for people with hemophilia A (PwHA). A systematic review was conducted evaluating the efficacy/effectiveness and the safety of emicizumab as prophylaxis for PwHA compared to prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII) or bypassing agents (BPA), respectively in patients without and with inhibitors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Database-directed search strategies were performed in Aug/26/2022 and updated in Mar/16/2023. Studies evaluating the prophylaxis with emicizumab versus prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA in PwHA without or with inhibitors, respectively, were selected by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Annualized bleeding rates for total treated bleeding events (ABR-all) were evaluated by meta-analysis. The quality of studies and certainty of evidence were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included. The standard mean differences for ABR-all were -0.6 (95%CI -1.0 to -0.2, p-value = 0.0002), among PwHA without inhibitors, and -1.7 (95%CI -2.4 to -0.9, p-value <0.00001), among PwHA with inhibitors. However, there was moderate heterogeneity in both meta-analyses. The most frequent adverse event was injection site reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Emicizumab prophylaxis was superior in reducing the ABR-all when compared with prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA.