Emicizumab versus immunosuppressive therapy for the management of acquired hemophilia A.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is an autoimmune bleeding disorder caused by neutralizing antibodies against coagulation factor VIII. Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is standard of care to eradicate autoantibody production and protect from further bleeding but carries a risk of severe infection and mortality in frail patients with AHA. Recently, emicizumab has been studied for its potential to reduce the need for early and aggressive IST. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of 2 studies that used either IST (GTH-AH 01/2010; N = 101) or prophylaxis with emicizumab (GTH-AHA-EMI; N = 47) early after diagnosis of AHA. METHODS: Baseline characteristics were balanced by propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was the rate of clinically relevant new bleeds during the first 12 weeks; secondary endpoints were adverse events and overall survival. RESULTS: The negative binominal model-based bleeding rate was 68% lower with emicizumab as compared with IST (incident rate ratio, 0.325; 95% CI, 0.182-0.581). No difference was apparent in the overall frequency of infections (emicizumab 21%, IST 29%) during the first 12 weeks, but infections were less often fatal in emicizumab-treated patients (0%) compared with IST-treated patients (11%). Thromboembolic events occurred less often with emicizumab (2%) than with IST (7%). Overall survival after 24 weeks was better with emicizumab (90% vs 76%; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95%, CI, 0.24-0.81). CONCLUSION: Using emicizumab instead of IST in the early phase after initial diagnosis of AHA reduced bleeding and fatal infections and improved overall survival.