Anxiety and depression among adults with haemophilia A: Patient and physician reported symptoms from the real-world European CHESS II study.

INTRODUCTION: The physical pain and disability affecting many people with haemophilia A (PwHA) are known detractors from psychological wellbeing. While psychosocial support is considered a core tenet of the haemophilia comprehensive care structure, the extent to which mental health challenges are detected and monitored by the individuals treating haematologist remains relatively unexplored. AIM: To describe prevalence of anxiety and depression in a real-world cohort of adult PwHA and evaluate the congruence in reporting of anxiety or depression (A/D) between PwHA and their treating physicians. METHODS: Data for PwHA without inhibitors was drawn from the European 'Cost of Haemophilia: A Socioeconomic Survey II' (CHESS II) study. Haematologist-indicated comorbidities of anxiety and depression were unified into a single A/D indicator. The EQ-5D-5L health status measure was used to characterise self-reported A/D, with individuals stratified into two non-mutually exclusive subgroups based on level of A/D reported (Subgroup A: 'some' or above; Subgroup B: 'moderate' or above). RESULT: Of 381 PwHA with evaluable EQ-5D-5L responses, 54% (n = 206) self-reported at least some A/D (Subgroup A) and 17% (n = 66) reported at least moderate A/D (Subgroup B). Patient-physician congruence in A/D reporting was 53% and 76% for Subgroups A and B, respectively. Descriptive analysis suggested that individuals with physician- and/or self-reported A/D experienced worse clinical outcomes (bleeding events, joint disease, chronic pain). CONCLUSION: While adverse clinical outcomes appear to correlate with A/D, self-reports of moderate-severe symptoms occasionally lacked formal recognition from treating physicians. Cross-disciplinary surveillance of mental health issues could improve both psychological and clinical outcomes among PwHA.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of bleeding outcomes in severe haemophilia A: Comparing valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene therapy, emicizumab prophylaxis, and FVIII replacement prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: Head-to-head evaluation of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, the first gene therapy approved for haemophilia A, with emicizumab is not available. Therefore, phase 3 trial data were indirectly compared. AIM: To compare bleeding rates in trials evaluating 6 × 1013  vg/kg valoctocogene roxaparvovec (GENEr8-1; NCT03370913), 1.5 mg/kg emicizumab dosed every week (HAVEN 3; NCT02847637), and FVIII prophylaxis (270-902) in participants with severe haemophilia A (FVIII ≤1 IU/dL). METHODS: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab and FVIII prophylaxis as used in 270-902 versus emicizumab cross-trial comparisons were performed using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Individual participant data from GENEr8-1 and 270-902 were weighted to equalise aggregate participant baseline characteristics from HAVEN 3. After MAIC weighting, annualised bleeding rates (ABR) and proportions of participants without bleeds were compared for treated bleeds, all bleeds, treated joint bleeds, and treated spontaneous bleeds. RESULTS: After MAIC weighting, ABR for all bleeds was statistically significantly lower with valoctocogene roxaparvovec than emicizumab (rate ratio [95% CI], .55 [.33-.93]). Additionally, significantly higher proportions of participants had no treated joint bleeds (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.75 [1.20-6.31]) and no treated bleeds (3.25 [1.53-6.90]) with valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab. When compared with the mainly standard half-life FVIII prophylaxis regimens in 270-902, mean ABRs (except for all bleeds) were significantly lower, and significantly higher proportions reported 0 bleeds for all outcomes with emicizumab. CONCLUSION: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec provided generally lower bleeding rates and higher probability of no bleeds, including treated joint bleeds, than emicizumab. Emicizumab was more effective than FVIII prophylaxis regimens used in 270-902.

Clinical attributes and treatment characteristics are associated with work productivity and activity impairment in people with severe haemophilia A.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined the real-world impact of haemophilia on daily activities and work productivity in people with severe haemophilia A (PWSHA). AIM: To determine clinical attributes and treatment characteristics associated with impairment in daily activities and work among PWSHA using the patient-reported Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health Questionnaire (WPAI-GH). METHODS: PWSHA were asked to complete the WPAI-GH as part of the Cost of Haemophilia in Europe: A Socioeconomic Survey (CHESS) study. Outcomes were determined for activity impairment (AI), absenteeism, presenteeism and overall work productivity loss (WPL). Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between these outcomes and clinical and treatment attributes. RESULTS: Overall, 376 participants completed the AI element of WPAI-GH; 175 were employed and thus also reported on work impact. Mean ± standard deviation scores were as follows: AI = 34.2% ± 25.8%; absenteeism = 0.06% ±0.2%; presenteeism = 26.8% ± 22.4%; WPL = 28.6% ± 24.0%. Increased AI and WPL were associated with high haemophilia-related morbidity, measured both as chronic pain (p < .001 for both) and joint synovitis (AI: p <0.001; WPL: p = .017). In descriptive and multivariate analyses, lifelong prophylaxis was associated with reduced AI (p < .001 and p = .031, respectively); high therapy adherence was associated with reduced AI (p = .001 and p = .012, respectively) and with reduced WPL (p < .001 and p = .012, respectively). CONCLUSION: The WPAI-GH identified haemophilia-related morbidity and treatment characteristics, including therapy regimen and adherence, as key attributes impacting functional impairment and work contributions of PWSHA. Early prophylactic intervention and greater adherence to therapy may lead to lower AI and WPL in PWSHA.

Comparative Effectiveness of Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec and Prophylactic Factor VIII Replacement in Severe Hemophilia A.

INTRODUCTION: A prospective, non-interventional study (270-902) followed 294 adults with severe hemophilia A (SHA) receiving prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII). From these participants, 112 rolled over into a single-arm, multicenter, phase 3 trial (GENEr8-1; NCT03370913) that evaluated efficacy and safety of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, a gene therapy that provides endogenous FVIII in individuals with SHA. Participants from 270-902 who did not roll over provide an opportunity for a contemporaneous external control. Therefore, the comparative effectiveness of valoctocogene roxaparvovec vs FVIII prophylaxis was evaluated using propensity scoring (PS). METHODS: This post hoc analysis compared 112 participants from GENEr8-1 (treated cohort) to 73 participants in 270-902 who did not enroll in GENEr8-1 (control cohort). The primary analysis used standardized mortality ratio weighting to re-weight baseline characteristics of the control cohort to better match the treated cohort. Mean annualized bleeding rates (ABR) for treated and all bleeds were compared between cohorts along with the proportion of participants with zero bleeds (treated and all bleeds). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: PS adjustments reduced differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. Mean treated (4.40 vs 0.85; P < 0.001) and all (5.01 vs 1.54; P < 0.001) ABR were significantly lower, and the proportions of participants with zero treated bleeds (82.1% vs 32.9%; P < 0.001) and all bleeds (58.0% vs 28.5%; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in GENEr8-1. CONCLUSIONS: PS-adjusted analyses were consistent with prior intra-individual comparisons. Compared with participants receiving prophylactic FVIII, the participants receiving valoctocogene roxaparvovec experienced lower ABR, and a higher proportion had zero bleeds. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03370913.

Hemophilia A is a bleeding disorder where blood is unable to clot properly because of a missing protein called factor VIII (FVIII). Individuals with hemophilia A have an increased risk of prolonged bleeding episodes that can be deadly. To prevent bleeding, people with severe hemophilia A need to routinely inject treatment into the skin or vein (prophylaxis). While effective, some people find the time and effort needed to maintain frequent injections difficult, since some forms of the prophylaxis must be administered in a hospital setting. Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a gene therapy where a single injection provides instructions to the liver of individuals with hemophilia A to make the missing protein (FVIII). Then, their own liver cells can produce FVIII protein and prevent bleeding episodes. The valoctocogene roxaparvovec clinical trial compared the number of treated bleeding episodes participants had prior to gene therapy, while using prophylaxis, with the number of treated bleeding episodes after gene therapy. On average, after gene therapy, participants had 4.1 fewer treated bleeding episodes per year. In this study, mathematical models were used to explore how differences in participant's physical characteristics, such as body weight or medical history, might influence the effectiveness of gene therapy. Even when considering differences in the participants' physical characteristics, the gene therapy reduced treated bleeding episodes by 3.6 events per year. This study confirms results originally presented from the valoctocogene roxaparvovec clinical trial and reinforces confidence in the ability of valoctocogene roxaparvovec to reduce bleeding outcomes for participants with hemophilia A.

Immunogenicity of Biologics in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted through November 2016 to identify controlled and observational studies of biologics/biosimilars administered for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), psoriasis (Ps), Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. RESULTS: Of >21,000 screened publications, 443 were included. Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) rates varied widely among biologics across diseases (and are not directly comparable because of immunoassay heterogeneity); the highest overall rates were reported with infliximab (0-83%), adalimumab (0-54%), and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (21-52%), and the lowest with secukinumab (0-1%), ustekinumab (1-11%), etanercept (0-13%), and golimumab (0-19%). Most ADAbs were neutralizing, except those to abatacept and etanercept. ADAb+ versus ADAb- patients had lower rates of clinical response to adalimumab (RA, PsA, JIA, AS, Ps), golimumab (RA), infliximab (RA, PsA, AS, Ps), rituximab (RA), ustekinumab (Ps), and CT-P13 (RA, AS). Higher rates of infusion-related reactions were reported in infliximab- and CT-P13-treated ADAb+ patients. Background immunosuppressives/anti-proliferatives reduced biologic immunogenicity across diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Based on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab. As ADAb formation in biologic-/biosimilar-treated patients may increase the risk of lost response, the immunogenicity of these agents is an important (albeit not the only) consideration in the treatment decision-making process.