Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 XTEND-1 trial (NCT04161495) demonstrated that efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis provided superior bleed protection compared with pre-trial factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis in patients with severe haemophilia A. The aim of this study was to indirectly compare the efficacy of efanesoctocog alfa with non-factor replacement therapy emicizumab in adolescent and adult patients with severe haemophilia A without inhibitors. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify phase 3 trials of emicizumab. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were used to compare annualised bleeding rates (ABRs) for any, treated, joint, and spontaneous bleeds, and joint health (measured using Hemophilia Joint Health Score [HJHS]), between efanesoctocog alfa and emicizumab. Estimated effects for different emicizumab regimens were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis to evaluate the overall difference in bleed outcomes between efanesoctocog alfa and emicizumab. RESULTS: One emicizumab trial was included (HAVEN 3), which investigated three dosing regimens. In meta-analyses, efanesoctocog alfa once-weekly (Q1W) was associated with significantly lower ABRs for any (incidence rate ratio [95% CI] 0.33 [0.20; 0.53]), any treated (0.49 [0.30; 0.80]) and treated joint (0.51 [0.28; 0.91]) bleeds compared with emicizumab Q1W in non-inhibitor patients with prior prophylaxis or on-demand treatment. Efanesoctocog alfa Q1W was also associated with a significantly better improvement from baseline in HJHS Joint Score (mean difference [95% CI] -2.06 [-3.97; -0.14]) and Total Score (-2.37 [-4.36; -0.39]) versus emicizumab Q1W or every 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: Efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis was associated with significantly lower rates of any, treated, and joint bleeds and improved joint health compared with emicizumab in patients with severe haemophilia A.