Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34754257›Full record

ArticleJournal of blood medicine2021

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol versus Turoctocog Alfa Pegol as Prophylactic Treatment in Patients with Hemophilia A.

Parth Vashi, Katharine Batt, Robert Klamroth, Maria Elisa Mancuso, Renata Majewska, Andreas Tiede, Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Parth Vashi *US Data Generation and Observational Studies, Bayer Corporation, Whippany, NJ, USA.
Katharine Batt *Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Hematology/Medical Oncology, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Robert KlamrothDepartment for Internal Medicine - Vascular Medicine and Coagulation Disorders, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4194-8183
Maria Elisa MancusoCenter for Thrombosis and Hemorrhagic Diseases, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Renata MajewskaHEOR, Creativ-Ceutical, Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3376-7908
Andreas TiedeHematology, Hemostasis, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3600-8536
Lorenzo Giovanni MantovaniCenter for Public Health Research, University of Milan - Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · USBayer (United States) · USIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITJagiellonian University · PLKlinikum im Friedrichshain · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEMultiMedica · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the efficacy and FVIII consumption of BAY 94-9027 versus N8-GP in prophylaxis in adolescent and adult patients with severe hemophilia A (HA). PATIENTS AND

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies on the efficacy of BAY-94-9027 and N8-GP for prophylaxis in patients with HA aged ≥12 years without a history of inhibitors. Eight studies met systematic literature review inclusion criteria, but only data from PROTECT VIII on BAY 94-9027 and PATHFINDER 2 on N8-GP could be used for an indirect comparison. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison were performed.

resultsNo significant differences (unadjusted and adjusted) were observed in the mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for any bleed and proportion of patients with zero bleeds when comparing BAY 94-9027 to N8-GP. The adjusted treatment difference [incidence rate ratio (IRR)] in terms of ABR was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.85-1.44). The odds ratio (OR) of any bleed, measuring the relative effect of BAY 94-9027 versus N8-GP on the proportion of patients with zero bleeds, was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.60-1.77). FVIII consumption was significantly lower in BAY 94-9027 [mean adjusted difference=-1292.57 IU/kg/year (95% CI, ‒2152.44 to ‒432.70)]; a 26.7% reduction in consumption of BAY-94-9027. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar to the main analysis for mean ABRs, percentages of patients with zero bleeds, and significant reduction in rFVIII consumption. For patients on BAY 94-9027 every-5-days and every-7-days, no differences versus every-4-days N8-GP were observed for the mean ABR for any bleed [IRR=0.90 (95% CI, 0.68‒1.20)] and proportion of patients with zero bleeds [OR=1.06 (95% CI, 0.56‒2.02)].

conclusionBAY 94-9027 prophylaxis demonstrated 26.7% lower annual consumption when compared to N8-GP with similar efficacy in terms of ABR and percentage of patients with zero bleeds.

Indexed as

adultsBAY 94-9027bleedcoagulation factor VIIIfactor VIII consumptionN8-GPprophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID34754257
PMCPMC8570287
OpenAlexW3209325612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.