Recombinant FVIIIFc Versus BAY 94-9027 for Treatment of Patients with Haemophilia A:Comparative Efficacy Using a Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) is the current standard of care for haemophilia A. Several approaches have been used to extend the half-life of rFVIII to improve prophylaxis outcomes. An indirect comparison of pivotal clinical trial data was performed to evaluate the relative efficacy of two extended half-life therapies approved for the prophylactic treatment of haemophilia A: recombinant FVIII-IgG1 Fc domain fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) and pegylated rFVIII (BAY 94-9027). METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to compare the rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis arm of the A-LONG phase III clinical trial (n = 117) and the BAY 94-9027 approved dosing regimens of the PROTECT VIII phase II/III study (n = 110). Following matching for baseline characteristics, mean annualised bleeding rate (ABR) and the proportion of patients with zero bleeds were compared for rFVIIIFc and BAY 94-9027. Additional supportive analyses comparing rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis and the individual prophylaxis regimens included in the PROTECT VIII group (twice weekly, and every 5 and 7 days [Q5D and Q7D]) were conducted. RESULTS: Mean ABR was lower in the rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis group versus the BAY 94-9027 pooled prophylaxis population (3.0 versus 4.9), providing a clinically relevant and statistically significant difference (mean difference [MD] - 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 3.5 to - 0.4). A statistically significant difference in ABR was also observed for rFVIIIFc compared with BAY 94-9027 Q7D (3.2 versus 6.4; MD - 3.3; 95% CI - 6.4 to - 0.2). The difference in the proportion of patients with zero bleeds between rFVIIIFc (46.5%) and BAY 94-9027 pooled prophylaxis population (38.2%) was not statistically significant (odds ratio 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.5). CONCLUSIONS: This indirect treatment comparison indicates a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in ABR favouring individualised prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc versus BAY 94-9027 prophylaxis. The proportion of patients with zero bleeds was numerically greater with rFVIIIFc treatment but did not achieve statistical significance