Hemophilia Therapy Research Articles

Inhibitory hemophilia: contemporary treatment with emicizumab. Considerations for pediatric practice

Introduction. This article provides an overview of current knowledge and global experience regarding the use of emicizumab, with a focus on its specific considerations in pediatric practice. Emicizumab, a monoclonal antibody, operates uniquely compared to other therapies. It has been approved in Moldova since 2019 for preventing bleeding in hemophilia patients. Significant data from clinical studies and accumulated clinical practice provide answers to most questions physicians have when prescribing emicizumab. The article presents recommendations based on current information and global experience to aid decision-making in emicizumab usage. The purpose of this article is to provide information on management tactics for pediatric patients with hemophilia A receiving emicizumab. Materials and methods. Over 40 publications were reviewed, consisting of recommendations, study results, and observations related to emicizumab use in pediatric patients with Hemophilia A. Results. In 2017, emicizumab became the first registered non-factorial therapy for Hemophilia A. It was approved for use in treating the inhibitory form of the condition. In 2018, indications for emicizumab were expanded to include patients with the inhibitory form of hemophilia A and severe hemophilia A without inhibitors. Emicizumab is used to prevent bleeding and is not intended to stop an already occurring bleeding. If bleeding has occurred, the patient will need to be prescribed FVIII or bypassing agents. Emicizumab is administered as a loading dose of 3 mg/kg once a week for the first 4 weeks, followed by a maintenance dose of 1.5 mg/kg once a week, 3 mg/kg once every two weeks, or 6 mg/kg once every four weeks. The dose is based on the patient’s body weight, which needs regular monitoring. If a dose is missed, it should be administered as soon as possible before the next scheduled dose, and the injection schedule should not be altered. Emicizumab can be used in children under one year to prevent bleeding. Conclusions. Hemophilia, caused by a deficiency in coagulation factors VIII or IX, is a bleeding disorder. The main treatment-related complication in hemophilia patients is the development of inhibitors – alloantibodies that neutralize the procoagulant activity of infused FVIII or factor IX. The reasons why only 20%-30% of Hemophilia A patients develop inhibitors remain a challenge. Emicizumab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody, bridges the gap between activated factor IX and factor X to replace the missing activated factor VIII, thereby restoring hemostasis.

Gene Therapy for Hemophilia B: Achievements, Open Issues, and Perspectives.

Hemophilia B is the first bleeding disorder for which gene therapy clinical programs began. Presently, adenovirus-associated vectors represent the best means to deliver the transgene, and their administration by intravenous route has been used in recent clinical trials. The natural occurring factor IX (FIX) Padua variant, which allows for a 5- to 8-fold higher activity of FIX, while maintaining a normal protein concentration, was subsequently used to enhance the level of transgene expression. All the recent trials using this variant showed good results, and accumulating data suggest that long-term expression durability could be maintained at a significant hemostatic level. However, the risk of loss of transgene expression associated to immune response with liver enzymes elevation remains a concern, especially as to the efficacy and duration of immunosuppressive treatment. Notwithstanding this limitation, the results of clinical trials suggest that gene therapy in hemophilia B has the potential to provide long-term benefits with sustained factor activity levels predicted to last several years in many patients.

Clinical immunogenicity outcomes from GENEr8-1, a phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an AAV5-vectored gene therapy for hemophilia A

Gene transfer therapies utilizing adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors involve a complex drug design with multiple components that may impact immunogenicity. Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is an AAV serotype 5 (AAV5)-vectored gene therapy for treatment of hemophilia A that encodes a B-domain–deleted human factor VIII (FVIII) protein controlled by a hepatocyte-selective promoter. Following previous results from the first-in-human phase 1/2 clinical trial, we assessed AAV5 capsid– and transgene-derived FVIII-specific immune responses with 2 years of follow-up data from GENEr8-1, a phase 3, single-arm, open-label study in 134 adult men with severe hemophilia A. No FVIII inhibitors were detected following administration of valoctocogene roxaparvovec. Immune responses were predominantly directed toward the AAV5 capsid, with all participants developing durable anti-AAV5 antibodies. Cellular immune responses specific for the AAV5 capsid were detected in most participants by interferon-ᵧ enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay 2 weeks following dose administration and declined or reverted to negative over the first 52 weeks. These responses were weakly correlated with alanine aminotransferase elevations and showed no association with changes in FVIII activity. FVIII-specific cellular immune responses were less frequent and more sporadic compared with those specific for AAV5 and showed no association with safety or efficacy parameters.

Nonsevere Hemophilia: The Need for a Renewed Focus and Improved Outcomes.

People with nonsevere hemophilia (PWNSH) are phenotypically more diverse than those with severe hemophilia. Perceptions relating to a "nonsevere" phenotype have contributed to fewer research initiatives, fewer guidelines on optimal management, and a lack of standards for surveillance and clinical assessment for affected individuals. In many cases, episodes of abnormal bleeding could, if investigated, have led to earlier diagnosis. Furthermore, the major recent developments in therapy for hemophilia have largely focused on severe disease and, as a group, PWNSH have not been included in many key clinical trials. Benefiting people with severe disease, innovative replacement therapies have generally targeted factor levels that are above those present in a large proportion of PWNSH. Therapeutic advances can lead to improvement in phenotype for people with severe hemophilia over that currently experienced by many PWNSH. As a result, we are approaching a point where PWNSH may, in many countries, have a higher risk of bleeding and restriction in lifestyle than those with severe disease but with more limited therapeutic options. Given the multiple major advances in treatment for people with hemophilia, it is timely to review the aspects of nonsevere disease, to ensure equity in care and management for all individuals with this condition.

The use of Bacillus subtilis as a cost-effective expression system for production of Cholera Toxin B fused factor VIII epitope regions applicable for inducing oral immune tolerance.

Coagulation factor replacement therapy for the X-linked bleeding disorder Haemophilia, characterized by a deficiency of coagulation protein factor VIII (FVIII), is severely complicated by antibody (inhibitors) formation. The development of FVIII inhibitors drastically alters the quality of life of the patients and is associated with a tremendous increase in morbidity as well as treatment costs. The ultimate goal of inhibitor control is antibody elimination. Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the only clinically established approach for developing antigen-specific tolerance to FVIII. This work aims to establish a novel cost-effective strategy to produce FVIII molecules in fusion with cholera toxin B (CTB) subunit at the N terminus using the Bacillus subtilis expression system for oral tolerance, as the current clinical immune tolerance protocols are expensive. Regions of B-Domain Deleted (BDD)-FVIII that have potential epitopes were identified by employing Bepipred linear epitope prediction; 2 or more epitopes in each domain were combined and cDNA encoding these regions were fused with CTB and cloned in the Bacillus subtilis expression vector pHT43 and expression analysis was carried out. The expressed CTB-fused FVIII epitope domains showed strong binding affinity towards the CTB-receptor GM1 ganglioside. To conclude, Bacillus subtilis expressing FVIII molecules might be a promising candidate for exploring for the induction of oral immune tolerance.

Three-year outcomes of valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene therapy for hemophilia A

BackgroundValoctocogene roxaparvovec transfers a human factor (F)VIII coding sequence into hepatocytes of people with severe hemophilia A to provide bleeding protection. ObjectivesTo present 3-year efficacy and safety in the multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 GENEr8-1 trial. MethodsGENEr8-1 enrolled 134 adult males with severe hemophilia A who were receiving FVIII prophylaxis. Efficacy endpoints included annualized bleeding rate, annualized FVIII utilization, FVIII activity (chromogenic substrate assay; imputed as 1 IU/dL at baseline and 0 IU/dL after discontinuation), and the Haemophilia-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs). ResultsAt week 156, 131 of 134 participants remained in the study; overall, 17 of 134 resumed prophylaxis. Mean annualized bleeding rate for treated bleeds decreased from 4.8 (SD, 6.5) bleeds/y at baseline to 0.8 (SD, 2.3; P < .0001) bleeds/y after prophylaxis (prophylaxis cessation to last follow-up) and 0.97 (SD, 3.48) bleeds/y during year 3. Annualized FVIII utilization decreased 96.8% from baseline after prophylaxis and 94.2% during year 3. At week 156, mean and median FVIII activity were 18.4 (SD, 30.8) and 8.3 IU/dL, respectively. FVIII activity decrease was lower between years 2 and 3 than between years 1 and 2. At the end of year 3, clinically meaningful improvements in the Haemophilia-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults Total Score were observed (mean change from baseline, 6.6; 95% CI, 4.24-8.87; P < .0001). Mild alanine aminotransferase elevations remained the most common AE during year 3 (23.7% of participants). A serious AE of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia was considered unrelated to treatment. ConclusionHemostatic efficacy was maintained, and safety remained unchanged from previous years.

Gene Therapy in Hemophilia A: Achievements, Challenges, and Perspectives.

Strides in advancements of care of persons with hemophilia include development of long-acting factor replacement therapies, novel substitution and hemostatic rebalancing agents, and most recently approved gene therapy. Several decades of preclinical and clinical trials have led to development of adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector-mediated gene transfer for endogenous production of factor VIII (FVIII) in hemophilia A (HA). Only one gene therapy product for HA (valoctocogene roxaparvovec) has been approved by regulatory authorities. Results of valoctocogene roxaparvovec trial show significant improvement in bleeding rates and use of factor replacement therapy; however, sustainability and duration of response show variability with overall decline in FVIII expression over time. Further challenges include untoward adverse effects involving liver toxicity requiring immunosuppression and development of neutralizing antibodies to AAV vector rendering future doses ineffective. Real-life applicability of gene therapy for HA will require appropriate patient screening, infrastructure setup, long-term monitoring including data collection of patient-reported outcomes and innovative payment schemes. This review article highlights the success and development of HA gene therapy trials, challenges including adverse outcomes and variability of response, and perspectives on approach to gene therapy including shared decision-making and need for future strategies to overcome the several unmet needs.

Bleeding control improves after switching to emicizumab: Real-world experience of 177 children in the PedNet registry.

Despite the rapid uptake of emicizumab in the paediatric haemophilia A (HA) population, real-world data on the safety and efficacy is limited. To report on bleeding and safety in paediatric patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis. Data were extracted from the multicentre prospective observational PedNet Registry (NCT02979119). Children with haemophilia A, and ≥50 FVIII exposures or inhibitors present receiving emicizumab maintenance therapy were analysed. Data were summarized as medians with interquartile range (IQR, P25-P75). Mean (95% confidence interval (CI)), annualized (joint) bleeding rate (A(J)BR) during emicizumab and ≤2 years before emicizumab prophylaxis were modelled and compared using negative binomial regression. Total of 177 patients started emicizumab at median 8.6 years (IQR 4.8-13.1), most had no FVIII inhibitors (64%). Follow up before emicizumab was median: 1.68 years (IQR: 1.24-1.90) and during emicizumab: 1.32 years (IQR:.94-2.11). In patients without inhibitors, mean ABR reduced after starting emicizumab from 2.41 (CI 1.98-2.95) to 1.11 (CI.90-1.36, p<.001), while AJBR reduced from.74 (CI.56-.98) to.31 (CI.21-.46, p<.001). Concordantly, in patients with inhibitors, mean ABR reduced from 5.08 (CI 4.08-6.38) to.75 (CI.56-1.01, p<.001), while AJBR reduced from 1.90 (CI 1.42-2.58) to.34 (CI.21-.56, p<.001). Five emicizumab-related adverse events were reported (3% of the cohort), including one patient with antidrug antibodies. This study showed improved bleeding control compared to previous treatment and a favourable safety profile during emicizumab therapy in paediatric haemophilia A patients.

The benefits of gene therapy in people with haemophilia.

Haemophilia is an inherited bleeding disorder which causes significant morbidity and mortality, especially in the severe form. Prophylaxis with factor replacement has high efficacy in reducing bleeding but is limited by the need for frequent intravenous infusion and fluctuations in haemostasis between doses. Additional prophylaxis therapies are being developed which may overcome some of the current treatment barriers. Gene therapy (GT) is being developed to provide a functional cure such that there is sustained factor expression and minimal to no need for additional haemostatic therapy. There are now two approved gene therapies for haemophilia which may be transformative for many individuals. Benefits of GT should go beyond increasing factor activity and reducing bleeding as persons with haemophilia aim to achieve a 'haemophilia-free mind' and health equity with optimal health and well-being.

Monitoring for liver cancer post-gene therapy-How much and how often?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has long been recognized as a complication in people with chronic liver disease, particularly those with cirrhosis. Two gene therapies for haemophilia A and B recently approved in Europe and the US utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors designed to target hepatocytes. A number of other AAV gene therapies are undergoing clinical investigation for both liver and extrahepatic diseases, many of which likely transduce hepatocytes as well. Although AAV vectors predominantly persist in episomal forms, concerns about insertional mutagenesis have arisen due to findings in pre-clinical models and in a small subset of human HCC cases featuring wild-type AAV integrations in proximity to potential oncogenes. Despite the absence of any causative link between AAV vector therapy and HCC in approved extrahepatic gene therapies or haemophilia gene therapy trials, the package inserts for the recently approved haemophilia gene therapies advise HCC screening in subsets of individuals with additional risk factors. In this review, we discuss HCC risk factors, compare various screening modalities, discuss optimal screening intervals, and consider when to initiate and possibly discontinue screening. At this early point in the evolution of gene therapy, we lack sufficient data to make evidence-based recommendations on HCC screening. While AAV vectors may eventually be shown to be unassociated with risk of HCC, we presently favour a cautious approach that entails regular surveillance until such time as it is hopefully proven to be unnecessary.

Hepatitis after gene therapy, what are the possible causes?

Hepatitis is a common adverse event following gene therapy for haemophilia, often associated with a loss of transgene expression. Investigating the potential causes and implications of this is crucial for the overall success of treatment. Gene therapy trials using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors have demonstrated promising results marked by increases in factor FVIII and FIX levels and reductions in episodes of bleeding. However, hepatocellular injury characterised by elevations in alanine aminotransferases (ALT) has been noted. This liver injury is typically transient and asymptomatic, posing challenges in determining its clinical significance. Proposed causes encompass immune-mediated responses, notably T cell cytotoxicity in response to the AAV vector, direct liver injury from the viral capsid or transcribed protein via the unfolded protein response and pre-existing liver conditions. Liver biopsy data conducted years post-gene therapy infusion has shown sinusoidal infiltration without significant inflammation. The overall safety profile of gene therapy remains favourable with no evidence drug-induced liver injury (DILI) based on Hy's Law criteria. Essential pre-therapy monitoring and identifying patients at high risk of liver injury should involve liver function tests and non-invasive fibroscans, while novel blood-based biomarkers are under exploration. Further research is required to comprehend the mechanisms underlying transaminitis, loss of transgene expression and long-term effects on the liver, providing insights for optimising gene therapy for haemophilia.

Which patients should be considered for gene therapy.

Gene therapy for haemophilia, utilizing adeno-associated viral vectors (AAVs) and coagulation factor genes, have demonstrated promising results, leading to recent approvals and introduction of the first gene therapy products into clinical practice. For successful and safe use, there are predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the treatment process and associated risks should be thoroughly understood and long-term safety and efficacy carefully evaluated during follow up. As gene therapy becomes more accessible outside of clinical study centers, continuous evaluation of patient eligibility for subsequent AAV-based treatments becomes essential. Thorough evaluation of factors such as liver condition, anti-AAV status, and medical history ensures that gene therapy maximizing benefits while minimizing risks. Apart from fulfilling the established inclusion and exclusion criteria, the success of gene therapy is greatly influenced by the motivation and willingness of patients to accept temporary constraints, such as regular laboratory monitoring, potential use of immunosuppressants, and thorough documentation. Furthermore, various patient-related factors play a significant role in the management and outcomes of gene therapy, making a comprehensive evaluation essential. With the accumulation of more data, there is potential for the expansion of certain inclusion criteria, which may allow for a larger number of eligible patients to benefit from gene therapy. Empowering patients through shared decision-making enables them to thoroughly consider the therapy's potential benefits and risks.

Correction to: Efficacy and Safety of Adeno-Associated Virus-Based Clinical Gene Therapy for Hemophilia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, by Han et al. Hum Gene Ther 2024;35(3-4):93-103; doi: 10.1089/hum.2023.208.

Correction to: Efficacy and Safety of Adeno-Associated Virus-Based Clinical Gene Therapy for Hemophilia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, by Han et al. Hum Gene Ther 2024;35(3-4):93-103; doi: 10.1089/hum.2023.208.

Current and emerging gene therapies for haemophilia A and B.

After decades of stumbling clinical development, the first gene therapies for haemophilia A and B have been commercialized and have normalized factor (F)VIII and factor (F)IX levels in some individuals in the long term. Several other clinical programs testing adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector gene therapy are at various stages of clinical testing. Multiyear follow-up in phase 1/2 and 3 studies showed long-term and sometimes curative but widely variable and unpredictable efficacy. Liver toxicities, mostly low-grade, occur in the 1st year in at least some individuals in all haemophilia A and B trials and are poorly understood. Wide variability and unpredictability of outcome and slow decline of FVIII levels are a major disadvantage because immune responses to AAV vectors preclude repeat dosing, which otherwise could improve suboptimal or restore declining expression, while overexpression may predispose to thrombosis. Long-term safety outcomes will need lifelong monitoring because AAV vectors infused at high doses integrate into chromosomes at rates that raise questions about potential oncogenicity and necessitate vigilance. Alternative gene transfer systems employing gene editing and/or non-viral vectors are under development and promise to overcome some limitations of the current state of the art for both haemophilia A and B. AAV gene therapies for haemophilia have now become new treatment options but not universal cures. AAV is a powerful but imperfect gene transfer platform. Biobetter FVIII transgenes may help solve some problems plaguing gene therapy for haemophilia A. Addressing variability and unpredictability of efficacy, and delivery of gene therapy to ineligible patient subgroups may require different gene transfer systems, most of which are not ready for clinical translation yet but bring innovations needed to overcome the current limitations of gene therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Versus Extended Half-Life Prophylaxis for Moderate-to-Severe Haemophilia B in Germany.

Haemophilia B is a rare genetic disease that is caused by a deficiency of coagulation factor IX (FIX) in the blood and leads to internal and external bleeding. Under the current standard of care, haemophilia is treated either prophylactically or on-demand via intravenous infusions of FIX. These treatment strategies impose a high burden on patients and health care systems as haemophilia B requires lifelong treatment, and FIX is costly. Etranacogene dezaparvovec (ED) is a gene therapy for haemophilia B that has been recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and has received a recommendation for conditional marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of ED versus extended half-life FIX (EHL-FIX) prophylaxis for moderate-to-severe haemophilia B from a German health care payer perspective. A microsimulation model was implemented in R. The model used data from the ED phase 3 clinical trial publication and further secondary data sources to simulate and compare patients receiving ED or EHL-FIX prophylaxis over a lifetime horizon, with the potential for ED patients to switch treatment to EHL-FIX prophylaxis when the effectiveness of ED waned. Primary outcomes of this analysis included discounted total costs, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness, and the incremental net monetary benefit. The annual discount rate for costs and effects was 3%. Uncertainty was examined via probabilistic analysis and additional univariate sensitivity analyses. Probabilistic analysis indicated that patients treated with ED instead of EHL-FIX prophylaxis gained 0.50 QALYs and experienced cost savings of EUR 1,179,829 at a price of EUR 1,500,000 per ED treatment. ED was the dominant treatment strategy. At a willingness to pay of EUR 50,000/QALY, the incremental net monetary benefit amounted to EUR 1,204,840. Depending on the price, ED can save costs and improve health outcomes of haemophilia patients compared with EHL-FIX prophylaxis, making it a potentially cost-effective alternative. These results are uncertain due to a lack of evidence regarding the long-term effectiveness of ED.

Defining success in haemophilia care - Are we doing it right?

Transformational advances have occurred in the management of haemophilia in the last decade leading to much better outcomes. However, a detailed and critical examination of its assessment and reporting show gaps in many aspects. These are discussed in this review. The relevant literature related to different aspects of management of haemophilia was reviewed to identify gaps which need to be addressed. These include detection and diagnosis of haemophilia, documentation and reporting of joint bleeding, its management and methods of reporting in clinical trials and practice, aspects of personalizing care as well as access to therapeutic products and the need for and organization of comprehensive care. Current diagnostic approaches have more than doubled the identified number of persons with haemophilia (PWH) over the last 25 years but still constitute only ∼30% of the expected number. Joint bleeding is the primary indicator of disease severity and treatment efficacy, but there is lack of consistency and standardization in the way it is recorded and reported. Its continued use as an efficacy measure of modern treatments which maintain steady state factor levels or equivalence of>5% will lack sensitivity. The treatment of acute haemarthrosis has focussed on haemostasis and pain control, ignoring the role of inflammation in joint damage. Phenotypic heterogeneity of severe haemophilia has recognized clinical and laboratory variations based on haemostasis but not differences in local response to blood in the joint. At the organizational level, IU/capita provides a relevant measure of access to therapeutic products when the detection rate is ∼100% but is fallaciously low when detection rates are very low. With highly effective modern therapies for haemophilia and nearly no bleeding, the concept of comprehensive care team will need modifications. As haemophilia care advances, a deeper dive is needed into the details of various aspects its management to ensure consistency and contemporary relevance.

Next-generation strategies to improve safety and efficacy of adeno-associated virus-based gene therapy for hemophilia: lessons from clinical trials in other gene therapies.

Three major directions for the global progress of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors for gene therapies (GT) are analyzed: a) engineering vectors to increase transgene expression; b) aligning interests of the health system with costs and challenges for pharmaceutical industry; c) refining patient eligibility criteria, and endpoints definition. Currently employed AAV vectors may cause toxicity and adverse events. Furthermore, studies in animals do not fully predict risks and clinical benefits of AAV-based GT, and animal models reflecting the heterogeneity of certain clinical settings (e.g., congestive heart failure) are poorly available for improving AAV-based GT. Finally, antisense and gene editing approaches will soon complement gene augmentation strategies for the stable solution of unsolved issues of AAV-based GT. While minimizing toxicity, next-generation AAV vectors should decrease the viral load needed to achieve therapeutic efficacy; be functional in a restricted cellular subset; avoid transgene expression in unwanted cells (e.g., hepatocytes), and escape immune oversight in AAV-based GT. The role of stress-induced apoptosis in the loss of transgene expression in GT should be also explored. Aligning interests and obligations of pharmaceutical industry with those of the health system is critical for AAV-based GT success. Costs and challenges for pharmaceutical industry include a) removing impurities from AAV; b) validating tests to measure treatment efficacy, c) promoting training programs to standardize vector genomes delivery, d) collecting long-term follow-up data, and e) maintaining sustainability and cost-effectiveness of AAV-based GT. In rare disorders with small patient numbers (e.g., hemophilia), clearcut outcomes are mandatory as endpoints of unequivocal efficacy data.

Fidanacogene Elaparvovec (Beqvez)

&#x0D; CADTH recommends that Beqvez be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of adults with moderately severe to severe hemophilia B (congenital factor IX deficiency) who are negative for neutralizing antibodies to variant adeno-associated virus (AAV) serotype Rh74 , if certain conditions are met.&#x0D; Beqvez should only be covered to treat adult patients (aged 18 years or older) with circulating coagulation factor IX (FIX:C) activity of 2% or less and bleeding that requires ongoing prophylactic treatment. Beqvez should not be covered if the patient has FIX inhibitors or has previously received gene therapy for hemophilia B.&#x0D; Beqvez should only be reimbursed if prescribed by specialists who have expertise in treating hemophilia B and if the cost of Beqvez is reduced. Beqvez is a 1-time therapy.&#x0D;

Etranacogene dezaparvovec gene therapy for haemophilia B (HOPE-B): 24-month post-hoc efficacy and safety data from a single-arm, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Etranacogene dezaparvovec, the first gene therapy approved for haemophilia B treatment, was shown to be superior to treatment with continuous prophylactic factor IX in terms of bleeding protection 18 months after gene therapy in a phase 3 trial. We report post-hoc 24-month efficacy and safety data from this trial to evaluate the longer-term effects of etranacogene dezaparvovec in individuals with haemophilia B. The phase 3 HOPE-B trial enrolled males aged 18 years or older with inherited haemophilia B, classified as severe (plasma factor IX activity level <1%) or moderately severe (plasma factor IX activity level ≥1% and ≤2%), with a severe bleeding phenotype and who were on stable continuous factor IX prophylaxis. Participants were treated with a single infusion of etranacogene dezaparvovec (2 × 1013 genome copies per kg of bodyweight). The primary endpoint, reported previously, was non-inferiority of the annualised bleeding rate (ABR) during the 52 weeks following stable factor IX expression (defined as months 7-18 after treatment) versus an at least 6-month lead-in period in which participants received their usual continuous factor IX prophylaxis, and is updated here up to month 24. Additional, post-hoc efficacy analyses, including adjusted ABR, factor IX activity, participants within factor IX ranges, and factor IX use, and safety analyses were performed at 24 months after gene therapy. Data were analysed in the full analysis set, which comprised the 54 patients who received at least a partial dose of gene therapy. The trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03569891. The study began on June 27, 2018, and participants were treated between January, 2019, and March, 2020; the date of data cutoff was April 21, 2022. 54 adult males (40 White, two Asian, one Black or African American, 11 other or missing) received a single intravenous infusion of etranacogene dezaparvovec and were followed for a median of 26·51 months (IQR 24·54-27·99), after a lead-in period of 7·13 months (6·51-7·82). In the updated analysis comparing months 7-24 after gene therapy to the lead-in period, mean adjusted ABR significantly reduced from 4·18 to 1·51 (p=0·0002) for all bleeds and from 3·65 to 0·99 (p=0·0001) for factor IX-treated bleeds. During each 6-month period after gene therapy, at least 67% of participants experienced no bleeding (36 of 54 during months 0-6 and stable thereafter), compared with 14 (26%) of 54 during the lead-in period. 24 months after gene therapy, 1 (2%) participant had one-stage factor IX activity less than 5%, whereas 18 (33%) had factor IX activity more than 40% (non-haemophilia range), with mean factor IX activity stable and sustained at 36·7% (SD 19·0%). 52 (96%) of 54 participants expressed endogenous factor IX, remaining free of factor IX prophylaxis at month 24. No new safety concerns were identified and no treatment-related serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred. The most common treatment-related adverse events were an increase in alanine aminotransferase (nine [17%] of 54 patients), headache (eight [15%]), influenza-like illness (seven [13%]), and an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (five [9%]). By providing durable disease correction throughout the 24 months after gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec provides a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with severe or moderately severe haemophilia B. uniQure and CSL Behring.

Economic analysis of the use of drugs for the treatment of hemophilia A, B and Willebrand's disease

Relevance. Therapy of hemophilia A, B and Willebrand's disease is carried out under the program of 14 VZN due to the use of federal budget funds. The use of funding is increasing in line with the growth of the total number of patients. In 2022,85.99 billion rubles were allocated, which corresponds to a 1.5‑fold increase in funding compared to 2018. The aim of the study was to conduct an economic analysis of the use of drugs for the therapy of hemophilia A, B and Willebrand's disease. Methods. The materials for the analysis were the dosing regimen of LPs selected on the basis of clinical recommendations, the availability of LPs in the 14 VZN program, and the prices for LPs from the State Register of maximum selling prices for VED drugs. Costs of on demand prophylaxis and treatment regimens for hemophilia A, B and Willebrand's disease according to clinical recommendations for each INN for all trade names (TN) were assessed. Results. For hemophilia A the number of submitted drugs by INN is 7;IN — 14; of them domestic drugs were submitted — 1. The minimum cost of LPs for prophylaxis is 2 584 764,00 rubles. Coit-DVI (Grifols Therapeutics LLC, USA), and the maximum cost is RUR 9,955,517.21. Advait (Takeda Manufacturing AG, Austria). Forhemophilia B, the number of represented PL — 2 INN; INN — 6; domestic drugs — 2. The minimum cost is RUR 1,559,376.00. Innonafactor (AO Generium, Russia), maximum — 3 079 319,88 rubles for a year course of prophylaxis LP Immunin (TakedaManufacturing, Austria). To stop bleeding in patients with inhibitor form use anti-inhibitor coagulant complex (Feiba, Austria), which is necessary on average 9100 units per 1 patient, and the average cost of application — 430 863,52 rubles or eptacog alpha(activated) (Coagil-VII, Russia) at multiple administration to the patient 6 times a day — maximum cost — 2 739 803,64 rubles or once a day — 293 550,35 rubles. Conclusion. In the structure of drug supply for patients with hemophilia, domestic drugs are represented by 5 names: Octofactor (JSC "Generium", Russia); Agemfil B (FGBU "NMIC Hematology" of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Russia) and Innonafactor (JSC "Generium", Russia); ArioSaven (LLC "PSK Pharma", Russia) and Coagil-VII (JSC "SG Biotech", Russia). There are no domestic drugs available for the therapy of Willebrand's disease.