ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Emicizumab is a monoclonal antibody approved for prophylaxis against bleeds for people with hemophilia A (PwHA). A systematic review was conducted evaluating the efficacy/effectiveness and the safety of emicizumab as prophylaxis for PwHA compared to prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII) or bypassing agents (BPA), respectively in patients without and with inhibitors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Database-directed search strategies were performed in Aug/26/2022 and updated in Mar/16/2023. Studies evaluating the prophylaxis with emicizumab versus prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA in PwHA without or with inhibitors, respectively, were selected by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Annualized bleeding rates for total treated bleeding events (ABR-all) were evaluated by meta-analysis. The quality of studies and certainty of evidence were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included. The standard mean differences for ABR-all were -0.6 (95%CI -1.0 to -0.2, p-value = 0.0002), among PwHA without inhibitors, and -1.7 (95%CI -2.4 to -0.9, p-value <0.00001), among PwHA with inhibitors. However, there was moderate heterogeneity in both meta-analyses. The most frequent adverse event was injection site reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Emicizumab prophylaxis was superior in reducing the ABR-all when compared with prophylaxis with FVIII or BPA.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Bispecific , Hemophilia A , Hemostatics , Humans , Hemophilia A/complications , Hemophilia A/drug therapy , Factor VIII/adverse effects , Hemorrhage/etiology , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Bispecific/adverse effects , Hemostatics/therapeutic useABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with emicizumab in PsHAhri on ITI in Brazil. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness modeling analysis was used to estimate the costs per PsHAhri on ITI and the number of prevented bleedings from undertaking one intervention (prophylaxis with BpA) over another (prophylaxis with emicizumab), based on the Brazilian Ministry of Health perspective. Costs of ITI with recombinant FVIII, prophylaxis with BpA or emicizumab, and treated bleeding episodes with BpA costs were evaluated for PsHAhri who had ITI success or failure. This study was conducted with the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (payer). RESULTS: During ITI, prophylaxis with BpA cost US $924 666/PsHAhri/ITI, whereas prophylaxis with emicizumab cost US $488 785/PsHAhri/ITI. During ITI, there was an average of 9.32 bleeding episodes/PsHAhri/ITI when BpA were used as prophylaxis and 0.67 bleeding/PsHAhri/ITI when emicizumab was used. By univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis, emicizumab remained dominant whichever variable was modified. CONCLUSION: In this study, prophylaxis with emicizumab during ITI is a dominant option compared with prophylaxis with BpA during ITI.
