ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Comparing Real-World Outcomes of Prophylaxis with Extended Half-life Factor IX (rIX-FP vs. rFIXFc and N9-GP) for Haemophilia B: An Analysis of Medical Chart Data from Germany.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized Treatment of Hemophilia: Matching Therapies to Patient Needs in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.Drugs · 2026Review
- Laboratory Challenges in the Era of Novel Haemophilia Therapies.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026Review
- Extravascular distribution of factor IX-review of experimental and clinical evidence, and relevance for hemophilia B replacement therapy.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Germany, three extended half-life factor IX (FIX) products are commonly used to treat people with haemophilia B (PwHB). However, there remains a critical need to differentiate treatments for PwHB. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and utilisation of rIX-FP compared with rFIXFc and N9-GP for prophylaxis in clinical practice in Germany.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed for PwHB aged ≥ 12 years with moderate/severe haemophilia B, who received prophylaxis with rIX-FP, rFIXFc or N9-GP for ≥ 12 months. The primary outcome was FIX consumption; secondary outcomes included annualised bleeding rate (ABR), annualised spontaneous bleeding rate (AsBR) and annualised joint bleeding rate (AjBR).
resultsThe study included 138 PwHB: rIX-FP, n = 52; rFIXFc, n = 55; and N9-GP, n = 31. Mean FIX consumption with rIX-FP (46.9 IU/kg/week) was significantly lower than that of rFIXFc (70.1 IU/kg/week, p = 0.0083) but not significantly different from N9-GP (47.2 IU/kg/week, p = 0.9331). PwHB receiving rIX-FP prophylaxis had significantly lower mean bleeding rates than those receiving N9-GP (ABR: 0.8 vs. 1.5, p = 0.0472; AsBR: 0.1 vs. 0.6, p = 0.0092; and AjBR: 0.2 vs. 0.6, p = 0.0140). Bleeding rates for rIX-FP and rFIXFc did not differ significantly.
conclusionrIX-FP prophylaxis was associated with significantly lower FIX consumption and numerically (but not significantly) lower bleeding rates compared with rFIXFc. Compared to N9-GP, prophylaxis with rIX-FP was associated with similar FIX consumption and significantly lower bleeding rates.
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.