Adriana Reyes, Cedric Revil, Markus Niggli, Sammy Chebon, Simone Schlagmuller, Jan-Paul Flacke, Max Zortel, Ido Paz-Priel, Elina Asikanius, Roger Hampton, Anadi Mahajan, Elvira Schmidt, Sisan C. Edwards
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis with that of factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors using two approaches: network meta-analyses (NMA) and additional sub-group analyses from the HAVEN 3 trial.
Methods: The NMA used data from trials identified using a systematic literature review and compared bleed rates in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and patients receiving FVIII prophylaxis using a Bayesian, random effects generalized linear model with log link Poisson likelihood. Additional sub-groups of the HAVEN 3 trial included here were defined as patients whose dose-taking behavior met either European label or World Federation of Hemophilia guidelines. A negative binomial regression model was used to conduct an intra-patient comparison of bleed rates within the sub-groups, during treatment with FVIII prophylaxis before entering HAVEN 3 and treatment with emicizumab prophylaxis during HAVEN 3.
Results: Four studies were included in the base-case NMA. Evidence showed that the total treated bleed rate was lower with emicizumab prophylaxis compared with FVIII prophylaxis (rate ratio [RR] = 0.36 [95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.13–0.95]). Similar associations were observed in sensitivity analyses. The additional HAVEN 3 analyses also showed lower rates of treated bleeds with emicizumab prophylaxis than with FVIII prophylaxis (RRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.380 [0.186–0.790] and 0.472 [0.258–0.866] in two sub-groups). These results confirm the original HAVEN 3 intra-patient comparison findings.
Conclusions: Combined findings from NMA and additional sub-group analyses of HAVEN 3 support the superiority of emicizumab prophylaxis over FVIII prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.
