ArticleBlood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis2026
Cost comparison of efanesoctocog alfa vs conventional factor VIII therapies for major surgeries in patients with severe hemophilia A.
Article in Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
We estimated total costs for perioperative hemostatic management with standard half-life (SHL), extended half-life (EHL), and high-sustained (efanesoctocog alfa) factor VIII (FVIII) products in people with severe hemophilia A. The data on dose, total factor consumption, and target FVIII activity for major surgeries were collected from US prescribing information and phase 3 clinical trials. The differences in the total factor consumption and total costs between therapies were compared. The median total factor consumption per major surgery involving octocog alfa (SHL), rurioctocog alfa pegol (EHL), efmoroctocog alfa (EHL), and efanesoctocog alfa was 910, 629, 493, and 163 IU/kg, respectively. The total factor costs were $162 308, $147 104, $120 233, and $81 286, respectively. Efanesoctocog alfa resulted in $81 022 to $38 947 savings vs SHL/EHL therapies per surgery. The perioperative management with efanesoctocog alfa was estimated to be markedly more economical than that with SHL and EHL therapies due to its high-sustained factor activity.
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.