Abstract
Emerging treatment options for hemophilia, including gene therapy, modified factor products, antibody-based products, and other nonreplacement therapies, are in development or on their way to marketing authorization. For proof of efficacy, annual bleeding rates (ABRs) have become an increasingly important endpoint in hemophilia trials. We hypothesized that ABR analyses differ substantially between and within medicinal product classes and that the ABR observation period constitutes a major bias. For ABR characterization, an internal factor VIII (FVIII) treatment database has been built based on confidential clinical trial data submitted to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI). Furthermore, anonymized data from 46 trial protocols submitted for review to the PEI were analyzed (FVIII replacement, n = 27; antibody-based, n = 12; and gene therapy, n = 7) for methodology. Definitions of bleeding episodes and ABR observational periods differed substantially in clinical trials. In the initial observation phase, individual ABRs of patients, treated prophylactically for 1 year, vary by about 40% (P < 0.001), which finally led to a significant reduction of the ABR group mean by 20% (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the high variance in ABRs constitutes a major challenge in statistical analyses. In conclusion, considerable heterogeneity and bias in the ABR estimation in clinical trials was identified, which makes it substantially more difficult to compare the efficacy of different treatment regimens and products. Thus, awareness of the important pitfalls when using ABR as a clinical outcome is needed in the evaluation of hemophilia therapies for patients, physicians, regulators, and health technology assessment agencies.