Expert review of hematology · 2026
Feasibility and outcomes of switching factor VIII therapies: post-hoc analysis of patients transitioning from older plasma-derived and first-generation recombinant factor VIII to newer third-generation recombinant factor VIII replacement therapies within the Takeda factor VIII portfolio.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cerretani Alicia, Robinson Ian, Shtaynberger Jonathan, Caicedo Jorge, Montcrieff Caitlin, Valentino Leonard A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The recent discontinuation of antihemophilic factor Method M, monoclonally purified (AHF-M) and recombinant antihemophilic factor (rAHF) requires evaluation of hemophilia A treatment strategies for some patients. This post-hoc analysis characterized the safety and efficacy of third-generation recombinant factor VIII (FVIII) products (antihemophilic factor [recombinant], plasma/albumin-free method [rAHF-PFM] and PEGylated rAHF [rAHF-PEG]) after switching from plasma-derived AHF-M or first-generation rAHF.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Previously treated patients from three trials (rAHF-PFM: two; rAHF-PEG: one) whose last recorded FVIII replacement therapy was either AHF-M or rAHF were included. Bleeding outcomes, consumption, hemostatic efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated.
RESULTS: Of 114 participants, 19 were previously treated with AHF-M and 95 with rAHF; 97 participants transitioned to rAHF-PFM and 17 to rAHF-PEG. Participants switching to rAHF-PEG prophylaxis achieved lower bleeding rates compared with previous prophylaxis. Most bleeding events were treated with one to two infusions of rAHF-PFM or rAHF-PEG with good or excellent hemostatic efficacy ratings. No participants developed inhibitors to rAHF-PFM or rAHF-PEG.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from this post-hoc analysis demonstrated improvements in bleeding outcomes in participants switching to rAHF-PEG and were consistent with the original trial results, supporting the feasibility of transitioning from the older- to newer-generation Takeda FVIII replacement therapies.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Previously treated patients from three trials (rAHF-PFM: two; rAHF-PEG: one) whose last recorded FVIII replacement therapy was either AHF-M or rAHF were included. Bleeding outcomes, consumption, hemostatic efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated.
RESULTS: Of 114 participants, 19 were previously treated with AHF-M and 95 with rAHF; 97 participants transitioned to rAHF-PFM and 17 to rAHF-PEG. Participants switching to rAHF-PEG prophylaxis achieved lower bleeding rates compared with previous prophylaxis. Most bleeding events were treated with one to two infusions of rAHF-PFM or rAHF-PEG with good or excellent hemostatic efficacy ratings. No participants developed inhibitors to rAHF-PFM or rAHF-PEG.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from this post-hoc analysis demonstrated improvements in bleeding outcomes in participants switching to rAHF-PEG and were consistent with the original trial results, supporting the feasibility of transitioning from the older- to newer-generation Takeda FVIII replacement therapies.