von Willebrand factor/factor VIII concentrate (Wilate) prophylaxis in children and adults with von Willebrand disease.

ABSTRACT: Long-term prophylaxis with a von Willebrand factor (VWF) concentrate is recommended in patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD) who have a history of severe and frequent bleeds. However, data from prospective studies are scarce. WIL-31, a prospective, noncontrolled, international phase 3 trial, investigated the efficacy and safety of Wilate prophylaxis in severe patients with VWD. Male and female patients 6 years or older with VWD types 1, 2 (except 2N), or 3 who had completed a prospective, 6-month, on-demand, run-in study (WIL-29) were eligible to receive Wilate prophylaxis for 12 months. At baseline, patients (n = 33) had a median age of 18 years. Six (18%) patients had severe type 1, 5 (15%) had type 2, and 22 (67%) had type 3 VWD. The primary end point of a >50% reduction in mean total annualized bleeding rate (TABR) with Wilate prophylaxis vs prior on-demand treatment was met; mean TABR during prophylaxis was 5.2, representing an 84.4% reduction. The bleeding reduction was consistent across age, sex, and VWD types. The mean spontaneous ABR was 3.2, representing an 86.9% reduction vs on-demand treatment. During prophylaxis, 10 (30.3%) patients had 0 bleeding events and 15 (45.5%) patients had 0 spontaneous bleeding events. Of 173 BEs, 84.4% were minor and 69.9% treated. No serious adverse events related to study treatment and no thrombotic events were recorded. Overall, WIL-31 showed that Wilate prophylaxis was efficacious and well-tolerated in pediatric and adult patients with VWD of all types. The WIL-29 and WIL-31 trials were registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT04053699 and #NCT04052698, respectively.

Eptacog beta efficacy and safety in the treatment and control of bleeding in paediatric subjects (<12 years) with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Eptacog beta is a new recombinant activated human factor VII bypassing agent approved in the United States for the treatment and control of bleeding in patients with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors 12 years of age or older. AIM: To prospectively assess in a phase 3 clinical trial (PERSEPT 2) eptacog beta efficacy and safety for treatment of bleeding in children <12 years of age with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors. METHODS: Using a randomised crossover design, subjects received initial doses of 75 or 225 µg/kg eptacog beta followed by 75 µg/kg dosing at predefined intervals (as determined by clinical response) to treat bleeding episodes (BEs). Treatment success criteria included a haemostasis evaluation of 'excellent' or 'good' without use of additional eptacog beta, alternative haemostatic agent or blood product, and no increase in pain following the first 'excellent' or 'good' assessment. RESULTS: Treatment success proportions in 25 subjects (1-11 years) who experienced 546 mild or moderate BEs were 65% in the 75 µg/kg initial dose regimen (IDR) and 60% in the 225 µg/kg IDR 12 h following initial eptacog beta infusion. By 24 h, the treatment success proportions were 97% for the 75 µg/kg IDR and 98% for the 225 µg/kg IDR. No thrombotic events, allergic reactions, neutralising antibodies or treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Both 75 and 225 µg/kg eptacog beta IDRs provided safe and effective treatment and control of bleeding in children <12 years of age.

The safety of activated eptacog beta in the management of bleeding episodes and perioperative haemostasis in adult and paediatric haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia patients with inhibitors often require a bypassing agent (BPA) for bleeding episode management. Eptacog beta (EB) is a new FDA-approved recombinant activated human factor VII BPA for the treatment and control of bleeding in haemophilia A or B patients with inhibitors (≥12 years of age). We describe here the EB safety profile from the three prospective Phase 3 clinical trials performed to date. AIM: To assess EB safety, immunogenicity and thrombotic potential in children and adults who received EB for treatment of bleeding and perioperative care. METHODS: Using a randomized crossover design, 27 subjects in PERSEPT 1 (12-54 years) and 25 subjects in PERSEPT 2 (1-11 years) treated bleeding episodes with 75 or 225 µg/kg EB initially followed by 75 µg/kg dosing at predefined intervals as determined by clinical response. Twelve PERSEPT 3 subjects (2-56 years) received an initial preoperative infusion of 75 µg/kg (minor procedures) or 200 µg/kg EB (major surgeries) with subsequent 75 µg/kg doses administered intraoperatively and post-operatively as indicated. Descriptive statistics were used for data analyses. RESULTS: Sixty subjects who received 3388 EB doses in three trials were evaluated. EB was well tolerated, with no allergic, hypersensitivity, anaphylactic or thrombotic events reported and no neutralizing anti-EB antibodies detected. A death occurred during PERSEPT 3 and was determined to be unlikely related to EB treatment by the data monitoring committee. CONCLUSION: Results from all three Phase 3 trials establish an excellent safety profile of EB in haemophilia A or B patients with inhibitors for treatment of bleeding and perioperative use.

PERSEPT 3: A phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the haemostatic efficacy of eptacog beta (recombinant human FVIIa) in perioperative care in subjects with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical procedures in persons with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors (PwHABI) require the use of bypassing agents (BPA) and carry a high risk of complications. Historically, only two BPAs have been available; these are reported to have variable responses. AIM: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new bypassing agent, human recombinant factor VIIa (eptacog beta) in elective surgical procedures in PwHABI in a phase 3 clinical trial, PERSEPT 3. METHODS: Subjects were administered 200 µg/kg (major procedures) or 75 µg/kg eptacog beta (minor procedures) immediately prior to the initial surgical incision; subsequent 75 µg/kg doses were administered to achieve postoperative haemostasis and wound healing. Efficacy was assessed on a 4-point haemostatic scale during the intra- and postoperative periods. Anti-drug antibodies, thrombotic events and changes in clinical/laboratory parameters were monitored throughout the perioperative period. RESULTS: Twelve subjects underwent six major and six minor procedures. The primary efficacy endpoint success proportion was 100% (95% CI: 47.8%-100%) for minor procedures and 66.7% (95% CI: 22.3%-95.7%) for major procedures; 81.8% (95% CI: 48.2%-97.7%) of the procedures were considered successful using eptacog beta. There was one death due to bleeding from a nonsurgical site; this was assessed as unlikely related to eptacog beta. No thrombotic events or anti-eptacog beta antibodies were reported. CONCLUSION: Two eptacog beta dosing regimens in PwHABI undergoing major and minor surgical procedures were well-tolerated, and the majority of procedures were successful based on surgeon/investigator assessments. Eptacog beta offers clinicians a new potential therapeutic option for procedures in PwHABI.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and covariate analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN-1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥18 (MMY-3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1-3 (MMY-3021) or ≥1 (CAN-1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. RESULTS: Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUC(last)): 155 vs. 151 ng·h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0.992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUC(last): 195 vs. 241 ng·h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (C(max)) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to C(max) (t(max)) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (E(max)) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect-time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %·h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %·h in CAN-1004. Time to E(max) was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established.