SynthesisAdvances in therapy2021
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Consumption of rVIII-SingleChain Versus Two Recombinant FVIII Products Used for Prophylactic Treatment of Adults/Adolescents with Severe Haemophilia A.
Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Costs and Efficacy of rFVIII Prophylaxis Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Hemophilia A.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Advances in biopharmaceutical products for hemophilia.iScience · 2024Review
- Observational
- The Importance of Clinical Context and Consistency in Methodology When Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons (MAICs) to Compare Outcomes.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- A French Real-World Evidence Study Evaluating the Efficacy, Safety, and Pharmacokinetic Parameters of rVIII-SingleChain in Patients with Hemophilia A Receiving Prophylaxis.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGiven the relatively small number of patients with haemophilia A, head-to-head comparisons between recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products are difficult to conduct. This study compared the efficacy and consumption of rVIII-SingleChain (lonoctocog alfa, AFSTYLA
methodsA systematic literature review identified published clinical trials for rAHF-PFM and rFVIIIFc. Individual patient data for rVIII-SingleChain were used to match baseline patient characteristics to those from published trials, using an approach similar to propensity score weighting. After matching, annualized bleeding rates (ABR), percentage of patients with zero bleeds, and rFVIII consumption were compared across trial populations.
resultsPublished data were identified from two rAHF-PFM trials and one rFVIIIFc trial. rVIII-SingleChain had similar ABR (risk ratio [RR]: 0.74 [0.16; 3.48]; RR: 1.18 [0.85; 1.65]) and percentage of patients with zero bleeds (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34 [0.56; 3.22]; OR: 0.78 [0.47; 1.31]) versus rAHF-PFM and rFVIIIFc, respectively. Annual rVIII-SingleChain consumption was significantly lower than rAHF-PFM (mean difference: - 1507.66 IU/kg/year [- 2011.71; - 1003.61]) and equivalent to rFVIIIFc (RR: 0.96 [0.62; 1.49]).
conclusionAlthough limited to published information for comparator trials, these results suggest that with an annualized rFVIII consumption comparable to rFVIIIFc, but significantly lower than rAHF-PFM, routine prophylaxis with rVIII-SingleChain is able to maintain a similar ABR and percentage of patients with zero bleeds, attesting to the long-acting nature of rVIII-SingleChain.
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.