The effect of emicizumab prophylaxis on long-term, self-reported physical health in persons with haemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors in the HAVEN 3 and HAVEN 4 studies.

INTRODUCTION: Severe haemophilia A (HA) has a major impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). AIM: Assess the impact of emicizumab on HRQoL in persons with severe HA (PwHA) without factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors in the phase 3 HAVEN 3 and 4 studies. METHODS: This pooled analysis examines the HRQoL of PwHA aged ≥ 18 years treated with emicizumab prophylaxis via Haemophilia-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL) and EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L). In particular, changes from baseline in Haem-A-QoL 'Physical Health' (PH) domain and 'Total Score' (TS) are evaluated. RESULTS: Among 176 evaluable participants, 96 (55%) had received prior episodic treatment and 80 (45%) prophylaxis; 70% had ≥ 1 target joint and 51% had experienced ≥ 9 bleeds in the previous 24 weeks. Mean Haem-A-QoL PH and TS improved after emicizumab initiation. Mean (standard deviation) -12.0 (21.26)- and -8.6 (12.57)-point improvements were observed in PH and TS from baseline to Week 73; Week 73 scores were 27.9 (24.54) and 22.0 (14.38), respectively. Fifty-four percent of participants reported a clinically meaningful improvement in PH scores (≥ 10 points) by Week 73. Subgroups with poorer HRQoL prior to starting emicizumab (i.e. receiving episodic treatment, ≥ 9 bleeds, target joints) had the greatest improvements in PH scores, and corresponding reductions in missed workdays; change was not detected among those previously taking prophylaxis. No change over time was detected by the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Emicizumab prophylaxis in PwHA without FVIII inhibitors resulted in persistent and meaningful improvements in Haem-A-QoL PH and less work disruption than previous treatment.

Development and testing of the Satisfaction Questionnaire with Intravenous or Subcutaneous Hemophilia Injection and results from the Phase 3 HAVEN 3 study of emicizumab prophylaxis in persons with haemophilia A without FVIII inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Emicizumab is a subcutaneously (SC) administered prophylactic agent for persons with haemophilia A (PwHA). As part of its clinical development, a new instrument was required to measure treatment satisfaction. AIM: Describe development of the Satisfaction Questionnaire with Intravenous or Subcutaneous Hemophilia Injection (SQ-ISHI) and its subsequent testing with HAVEN 3 study participants to measure patient satisfaction with emicizumab. METHODS: To develop the SQ-ISHI, we conducted four rounds of in-person interviews at five qualitative research facilities. Participants aged ≥12 years with moderate or severe haemophilia A, receiving intravenous factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis, provided feedback to optimize content understanding, ease of completion and item relevance. The final SQ-ISHI was completed by HAVEN 3 participants who previously received FVIII prophylaxis; baseline scores were compared with those at Week 21 or 25 of emicizumab prophylaxis. RESULTS: Sixty-three HAVEN 3 participants were eligible to complete the questionnaire and rate their satisfaction on a scale of 0 ('not at all satisfied') to 10 ('extremely satisfied'). Mean 'overall satisfaction' with previous FVIII prophylaxis at baseline was 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2 to 7.7) increasing to 8.8 (95% CI: 8.4 to 9.3) at follow-up (Week 21/25 of treatment with emicizumab). The greatest improvement was observed in satisfaction with treatment half-life (mean score at baseline: 5.8 [95% CI: 4.9 to 6.6] vs 8.6 [95% CI: 8.0 to 9.2] at follow-up). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that emicizumab prophylaxis leads to greater treatment satisfaction compared with FVIII prophylaxis, reflecting in part the low treatment burden of emicizumab associated with its infrequent, SC administration.

Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of emicizumab prophylaxis given every 4 weeks in people with haemophilia A (HAVEN 4): a multicentre, open-label, non-randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Emicizumab, a subcutaneously administered, humanised, bispecific, monoclonal antibody, is approved to treat people with haemophilia A of all ages with and without coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors. HAVEN 4 assessed emicizumab prophylaxis administered as one dose every 4 weeks in adults and adolescents with haemophilia A, regardless of FVIII inhibitor status. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicentre, open-label, two-stage study, patients aged 12 years and older with severe congenital haemophilia A (<1% of normal FVIII activity in blood) or haemophilia A with FVIII inhibitors, undergoing treatment with either FVIII concentrates or bypassing agents were recruited from three sites in Japan and Spain for a run-in cohort, and from 17 sites in Australia, Belgium, Japan, Poland, Spain, and the USA for a subsequent expansion cohort. Participants in the run-in and expansion cohorts were given emicizumab subcutaneously 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks for 24 weeks or more; for patients in the expansion cohort this regimen was preceded by four loading doses of 3 mg/kg once weekly. In the run-in cohort, we assessed pharmacokinetics after single and multiple (every 4 weeks) subcutaneous administration of 6 mg/kg emicizumab and safety. In the expansion cohort, the efficacy endpoint was efficacy of prophylactic emicizumab in maintaining adequate bleed prevention, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of emicizumab and reported as annualised bleed rates for treated bleeds, all bleeds (treated and untreated), treated spontaneous bleeds, treated joint bleeds, and treated target joint bleeds. Safety was assessed in all participants given emicizumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03020160, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2017, and Feb 27, 2017, seven patients were enrolled into the initial run-in cohort, which confirmed the expected pharmacokinetic profile and safety of the regimen based on model-based simulations, providing sufficient evidence for opening of the expansion cohort (n=41), which was recruited and enrolled between May 24, 2017, and June 30, 2017. The annualised rate of treated bleeds was 2·4 (95% CI 1·4-4·3). 23 (56·1%; 95% CI 39·7-71·5) of 41 reported no treated bleeds and 37 (90%; 76·9-97·3) reported zero to three treated bleeds. The annualised bleed rate was 4·5 (95% CI 3·1-6·6) for all bleeds, 0·6 (0·3-1·5), for treated spontaneous bleeds, 1·7 (0·8-3·7) for treated joint bleeds, and 1·0 (0·3-3·3) for treated target joint bleeds. The most frequent treatment-related adverse event was injection-site reaction (nine [22%] of 41 patients). We observed no thrombotic events or development of de-novo antidrug antibodies with neutralising potential or FVIII inhibitors. INTERPRETATION: Emicizumab given once every 4 weeks showed clinically meaningful bleed control while being well tolerated. This regimen could improve patient care by decreasing treatment burden and increasing adherence to effective prophylaxis, potentially decreasing the development of secondary complications for people with haemophilia A. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical.

Physician and Patient Preferences for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Therapies.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare patient and physician preferences for different antithrombotic therapies used to treat nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with NVAF and physicians treating such patients completed 12 discrete choice questions comparing NVAF therapies that varied across five attributes: stroke risk, major bleeding risk, convenience (no regular blood testing/dietary restrictions), dosing frequency, and patients' out-of-pocket cost. We used a logistic regression to estimate the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value for each attribute. RESULTS: The 200 physicians surveyed were willing to trade off $38 (95% confidence interval [CI] $22 to $54] in monthly out-of-pocket cost for a 1% (absolute) decrease in stroke risk, $14 (95% CI $8 to $21) for a 1% decrease in major bleeding risk, and $34 (95% CI $9 to $60) for more convenience. The WTP value among 201 patients surveyed was $30 (95% CI $18 to $42) for reduced stroke risk, $16 (95% CI $9 to $24) for reduced bleeding risk, and -$52 (95% CI -$96 to -6) for convenience. The WTP value for convenience among patients using warfarin was $9 (95% CI $1 to $18) for more convenience, whereas patients not currently on warfarin had a WTP value of -$90 (95% CI -$290 to -$79). Both physicians' and patients' WTP value for once-daily dosing was not significantly different from zero. On the basis of survey results, 85.0% of the physicians preferred novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to warfarin. NOACs (73.0%) were preferred among patients using warfarin, but warfarin (78.2%) was preferred among patients not currently using warfarin. Among NOACs, both patients and physicians preferred apixaban. CONCLUSIONS: Both physicians and patients currently using warfarin preferred NOACs to warfarin. Patients not currently using warfarin preferred warfarin over NOACs because of an apparent preference for regular blood testing/dietary restrictions.

Returns to Society from Investment in Cancer Research and Development.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the War on Cancer there have been enormous investments in improving oncology treatment. The return to society generated by this investment is unknown. We estimate the returns generated over the previous four decades and extrapolate future returns from current investment in cancer R&D. METHODS: Using data on cancer incidence, mortality, and treatment-specific R&D expenditures from 1973 to 2010, we used regression models and two-sided significance tests to relate investment in cancer treatment R&D to cancer mortality, by tumor type. For investment, we used a measure of the knowledge stock generated by cancer treatment R&D expenditures over the previous 25 years to capture the cumulative benefits of past innovations and advances in treatment. RESULTS: Investment of an additional $1 million in cervical, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer between 1973 and 1990 was associated with a cumulative return of more than $5 million from cancer R&D by 2010. Through 2010, investment in cancer R&D was associated with average benefits in excess of costs in all but two cancers, ovarian and pancreatic. Regarding future returns, we estimated that each additional $1 million invested in cancer treatment research and development in 2010 will produce over $28 million in value over the following 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: The return to society from spending on cancer treatment R&D is large, but varies across tumor types.