ArticleJournal of blood medicine2021
Efficacy of rFVIIIFc versus Emicizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hemophilia A without Inhibitors: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of A-LONG and HAVEN Trials.
Article in Journal of blood medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of emicizumab for the treatment of hemophilia A: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Personalized Treatment of Hemophilia: Matching Therapies to Patient Needs in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.Drugs · 2026Review
- Superior Prophylactic Effectiveness of a Recombinant FVIIIFc Over Standard Half-Life FVIII in Hemophilia A: A-SURE Study.European journal of haematology · 2025Observational
- Emicizumab as a Promising Form of Therapy for Type A Hemophilia - A Review of Current Knowledge from Clinical Trials.Current protein & peptide science · 2024Review
- Cost-effectiveness of recombinant factor VIII Fc versus emicizumab for prophylaxis in adults and adolescents with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK.European journal of haematology · 2023Article
- Efficacy of rFIXFc versus N9-GP Prophylaxis in Patients with Hemophilia B: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of B-LONG and PARADIGM 2 Trials.Journal of blood medicine · 2023Article
- Expert opinion on current and future prophylaxis therapies aimed at improving protection for people with hemophilia A.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrimary prophylaxis, using factor VIII replacement, is the recognized standard of care for severe hemophilia A. Recombinant factor VIII-Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab, a humanized, bispecific antibody, are approved for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in severe hemophilia A. These products have different mechanisms of action, methods of administration and treatment schedules. In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons can provide informative evidence on the relative efficacy of the two treatments. The aim of the study was to compare the approved dosing regimens for each product, rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis and emicizumab administered once every week (Q1W), every 2 weeks (Q2W) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), based on clinical trial evidence. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe comparison was conducted using matching-adjusted indirect comparison since clinical evidence did not form a connected network. Individual patient data for rFVIIIFc (A-LONG) were compared with data for emicizumab (HAVEN trial program) for mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and proportion of patients with zero bleeds. Safety data reported across the analyzed treatment arms were tabularized but not formally compared.
resultsAfter matching, no significant differences were observed between mean ABR for rFVIIIFc and emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W. The proportion of patients with zero bleeds was significantly higher with rFVIIIFc compared with emicizumab administered Q4W (51.2% versus 29.3%, respectively; odds ratio 2.53; 95% confidence interval 1.09-5.89); no significant differences noted when rFVIIIFc was compared with emicizumab administered Q1W or Q2W. The mean number of adverse events expressed per participant was 1.9 for individualized prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and 3.7-4.0, 4.1 and 3.6 for emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W, respectively.
conclusionThis indirect treatment comparison suggests that rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis is more efficacious than emicizumab Q4W, and at least as effective as more frequent emicizumab regimens, for the management of hemophilia A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.