酋长:一项针对无抑制剂的严重 A 型血友病患儿的回顾性自我对照研究,比较了 emicizumab 和 FVIII 预防疗法。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Daniel Mashiach, Patrice Mead, Kendall Carneiro, Jemily Malvar, Susan Knight, Guy Young
{"title":"酋长:一项针对无抑制剂的严重 A 型血友病患儿的回顾性自我对照研究,比较了 emicizumab 和 FVIII 预防疗法。","authors":"Daniel Mashiach,&nbsp;Patrice Mead,&nbsp;Kendall Carneiro,&nbsp;Jemily Malvar,&nbsp;Susan Knight,&nbsp;Guy Young","doi":"10.1002/pbc.31351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked bleeding disorder diagnosed by a deficiency in factor VIII (FVIII). For severe HA (SHA), prophylaxis clotting factor concentrates (CFC) has become the standard of care; however, it imparts a high treatment burden and typically results in an annualized bleeding rate (ABR) of 2–6. Emicizumab, a subcutaneously administered FVIII substitute, has become the de facto standard-of-care prophylaxis for children with SHA in many countries. Previous clinical trials of emicizumab have assessed ABR in patients greater than 12 years without inhibitors, and in children less than 12 years with inhibitors; however, there is little information published regarding the ABR of emicizumab compared to CFC in non-inhibitor SHA children.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Using a retrospective electronic medical record chart review, we conducted a self-control analysis of 15 patients less than 12 years of age during equivalent periods of CFC versus emicizumab prophylaxis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The mean ABR on CFC and emicizumab was 1.79 and 1.13 (<i>p</i> = .092), respectively, with a substantially decreased rate of joint bleeds (CFC 0.94; emicizumab 0.33; <i>p</i> = .001) and spontaneous bleeds (CFC 0.79; emicizumab 0.23; <i>p</i> = .008). No safety events were recorded for patients while administering emicizumab. The mean annual cost of CFC prophylaxis was $515,340 (SD $199,540), compared to $328,410 (SD $137,230) for emicizumab prophylaxis (<i>p</i> &lt; .001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Emicizumab resulted in an improved ABR compared to CFC, especially for joint and spontaneous bleeds, had fewer administration complications, and was substantially less expensive compared to CFC prophylaxis; however, more research is necessary for a complete understanding of the effect of emicizumab on joint health and muscle bleeds.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":19822,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Blood & Cancer","volume":"71 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pbc.31351","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CHIEF: A retrospective self-control study of children with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors comparing emicizumab to FVIII prophylaxis\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Mashiach,&nbsp;Patrice Mead,&nbsp;Kendall Carneiro,&nbsp;Jemily Malvar,&nbsp;Susan Knight,&nbsp;Guy Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pbc.31351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked bleeding disorder diagnosed by a deficiency in factor VIII (FVIII). For severe HA (SHA), prophylaxis clotting factor concentrates (CFC) has become the standard of care; however, it imparts a high treatment burden and typically results in an annualized bleeding rate (ABR) of 2–6. Emicizumab, a subcutaneously administered FVIII substitute, has become the de facto standard-of-care prophylaxis for children with SHA in many countries. Previous clinical trials of emicizumab have assessed ABR in patients greater than 12 years without inhibitors, and in children less than 12 years with inhibitors; however, there is little information published regarding the ABR of emicizumab compared to CFC in non-inhibitor SHA children.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Using a retrospective electronic medical record chart review, we conducted a self-control analysis of 15 patients less than 12 years of age during equivalent periods of CFC versus emicizumab prophylaxis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The mean ABR on CFC and emicizumab was 1.79 and 1.13 (<i>p</i> = .092), respectively, with a substantially decreased rate of joint bleeds (CFC 0.94; emicizumab 0.33; <i>p</i> = .001) and spontaneous bleeds (CFC 0.79; emicizumab 0.23; <i>p</i> = .008). No safety events were recorded for patients while administering emicizumab. The mean annual cost of CFC prophylaxis was $515,340 (SD $199,540), compared to $328,410 (SD $137,230) for emicizumab prophylaxis (<i>p</i> &lt; .001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Emicizumab resulted in an improved ABR compared to CFC, especially for joint and spontaneous bleeds, had fewer administration complications, and was substantially less expensive compared to CFC prophylaxis; however, more research is necessary for a complete understanding of the effect of emicizumab on joint health and muscle bleeds.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Blood & Cancer\",\"volume\":\"71 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pbc.31351\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Blood & Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.31351\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Blood & Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.31351","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:血友病 A(HA)是一种 X 连锁出血性疾病,可诊断为第八因子(FVIII)缺乏症。对于重度血友病(SHA),预防性凝血因子浓缩物(CFC)已成为治疗标准;然而,它带来了沉重的治疗负担,通常会导致2-6的年化出血率(ABR)。Emicizumab是一种皮下注射的FVIII替代物,在许多国家已成为SHA患儿事实上的标准预防疗法。先前的埃米珠单抗临床试验评估了12岁以上无抑制剂患者和12岁以下有抑制剂儿童的ABR;然而,关于埃米珠单抗与CFC相比在无抑制剂SHA儿童中的ABR,目前公布的信息很少:通过回顾性电子病历审查,我们对 15 名 12 岁以下患者在 CFC 与埃米珠单抗预防性治疗的相同时期进行了自我对照分析:CFC和埃米珠单抗的平均ABR分别为1.79和1.13(p = .092),关节出血率(CFC为0.94;埃米珠单抗为0.33;p = .001)和自发性出血率(CFC为0.79;埃米珠单抗为0.23;p = .008)大幅下降。在使用埃米珠单抗期间,患者未发生任何安全事件。CFC预防性治疗的年平均费用为515,340美元(SD为199,540美元),而依米珠单抗预防性治疗的年平均费用为328,410美元(SD为137,230美元)(p 结论:CFC预防性治疗的年平均费用为515,340美元(SD为199,540美元):与氟氯化碳相比,埃米珠单抗可改善 ABR,尤其是在关节出血和自发性出血方面,且用药并发症较少,费用也大大低于氟氯化碳预防性治疗;然而,要全面了解埃米珠单抗对关节健康和肌肉出血的影响,还需要进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

CHIEF: A retrospective self-control study of children with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors comparing emicizumab to FVIII prophylaxis

CHIEF: A retrospective self-control study of children with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors comparing emicizumab to FVIII prophylaxis

Background

Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked bleeding disorder diagnosed by a deficiency in factor VIII (FVIII). For severe HA (SHA), prophylaxis clotting factor concentrates (CFC) has become the standard of care; however, it imparts a high treatment burden and typically results in an annualized bleeding rate (ABR) of 2–6. Emicizumab, a subcutaneously administered FVIII substitute, has become the de facto standard-of-care prophylaxis for children with SHA in many countries. Previous clinical trials of emicizumab have assessed ABR in patients greater than 12 years without inhibitors, and in children less than 12 years with inhibitors; however, there is little information published regarding the ABR of emicizumab compared to CFC in non-inhibitor SHA children.

Methods

Using a retrospective electronic medical record chart review, we conducted a self-control analysis of 15 patients less than 12 years of age during equivalent periods of CFC versus emicizumab prophylaxis.

Results

The mean ABR on CFC and emicizumab was 1.79 and 1.13 (p = .092), respectively, with a substantially decreased rate of joint bleeds (CFC 0.94; emicizumab 0.33; p = .001) and spontaneous bleeds (CFC 0.79; emicizumab 0.23; p = .008). No safety events were recorded for patients while administering emicizumab. The mean annual cost of CFC prophylaxis was $515,340 (SD $199,540), compared to $328,410 (SD $137,230) for emicizumab prophylaxis (p < .001).

Conclusion

Emicizumab resulted in an improved ABR compared to CFC, especially for joint and spontaneous bleeds, had fewer administration complications, and was substantially less expensive compared to CFC prophylaxis; however, more research is necessary for a complete understanding of the effect of emicizumab on joint health and muscle bleeds.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Pediatric Blood & Cancer 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.40%
发文量
546
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Pediatric Blood & Cancer publishes the highest quality manuscripts describing basic and clinical investigations of blood disorders and malignant diseases of childhood including diagnosis, treatment, epidemiology, etiology, biology, and molecular and clinical genetics of these diseases as they affect children, adolescents, and young adults. Pediatric Blood & Cancer will also include studies on such treatment options as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, immunology, and gene therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信