Emicizumab prophylaxis administered subcutaneously once weekly or every 2 weeks led to a significantly lower bleeding rate than no prophylaxis among persons with hemophilia A without inhibitors; more than half the participants who received prophylaxis had no treated bleeding events. In an intraindividual comparison, emicizumab therapy led to a significantly lower bleeding rate than previous factor VIII prophylaxis. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical; HAVEN 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02847637 .).

Prophylaxis with emicizumab-a subcutaneously administered, bispecific, humanized, monoclonal antibody-promotes effective hemostasis in persons with hemophilia A (PwHA). The primary efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of emicizumab were reported previously, but long-term data were limited. Here, data from 401 pediatric and adult PwHA with/without factor VIII inhibitors who were enrolled in the Phase III HAVEN 1, HAVEN 2, HAVEN 3, and HAVEN 4 studies have been pooled to establish a long-term efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic profile. Across a median (interquartile range) efficacy period of 120.4 (89.0-164.4) weeks (data cut-off May 15, 2020), the model-based treated annualized bleed rate (ABR) was 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.7). ABRs declined and then maintained at <1 in an analysis of 24-week treatment intervals; at Weeks 121-144 (n=170) the mean treated ABR was 0.7 (0-5.0). During Weeks 121-144, 82.4% of participants had zero treated bleeds, 97.6% had ≤3 treated bleeds, and 94.1% reported zero treated target joint bleeds. Bleeding into target joints decreased substantially. Emicizumab was well tolerated, and no participants discontinued due to adverse events beyond the five previously described. This data-cut includes the previously reported 3 thrombotic microangiopathies (1 in the PwHA with fatal rectal hemorrhage), and 2 thromboembolic events, all associated with activated prothrombin complex concentrate use; and additionally, a myocardial infarction and a venous device occlusion. With 970.3 patient-years of exposure, emicizumab prophylaxis maintained low bleed rates in PwHA of all ages with/without FVIII inhibitors and remains well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Clinical trials registered as NCT02622321, NCT02795767, NCT02847637, NCT03020160.

Aims To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, with the alpha glucosidase inhibitor, acarbose, in drug-naive patients with Type 2 diabetes.Methods This multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm study compared the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin (100 mg daily, given as 50 mg twice daily, n = 441) and acarbose (up to 300 mg daily, given as three equally divided doses, n = 220) during 24-week treatment in drug-naive patients with Type 2 diabetes.Results Monotherapy with vildagliptin or acarbose decreased glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) (baseline ≈ 8.6%) to a similar extent during 24-week treatment. The adjusted mean change from baseline to end-point (AM Δ ) in HbA 1c was − 1.4 ± 0.1% and − 1.3 ± 0.1% in patients receiving vildagliptin and acarbose, respectively, meeting the statistical criterion for non-inferiority (upper limit of 95% confidence interval for between-treatment difference ≤ 0.4%). The decrease in fasting plasma glucose was similar with acarbose ( − 1.5 ± 0.2 mmol/l) and vildagliptin ( − 1.2 ± 0.1 mmol/l). Body weight did not change in vildagliptin-treated patients ( − 0.4 ± 0.1 kg) but decreased in acarbose-treated patients ( − 1.7 ± 0.2 kg, P < 0.001 vs. vildagliptin). The proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event (AE) was 35% vs. 51% in patients receiving vildagliptin or acarbose, respectively; gastrointestinal AEs were significantly more frequent with acarbose (25.5%) than vildagliptin (12.3%, P < 0.001). No hypoglycaemia was reported for either group. ConclusionsVildagliptin is effective and well tolerated in patients with Type 2 diabetes, demonstrating similar glycaemic reductions to acarbose, but with better tolerability. Diabet. Med. 25, 435-441 (2008)

Introduction Emicizumab is a humanised, bispecific monoclonal antibody mimicking the cofactor function of activated factor (F)VIII. It is indicated for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in persons with haemophilia A (PwHA) with/without FVIII inhibitors. Aim To evaluate the development of anti‐emicizumab antibodies and their impact on pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy and safety in PwHA. Methods Data from seven completed or ongoing phase 3 studies were pooled. The assessment of the immunogenicity profile of emicizumab included anti‐drug antibody (ADA) measurement and the association of ADAs with PK, PD, bleeding events, and adverse events. Results Of 668 PwHA evaluable for immunogenicity analysis, 34 (5.1%) developed ADAs after exposure to emicizumab. ADAs were transient in 14/34 PwHA (41.2%). ADAs were neutralising in vitro in 18/34 PwHA (52.9%) and associated with decreased emicizumab concentration in 4/668 evaluable PwHA (.6%); of those, one (.1%) discontinued emicizumab due to loss of efficacy. ADAs without decreased exposure did not impact emicizumab efficacy. The proportion of PwHA who had injection‐site reactions (ISRs) was higher in ADA‐positive PwHA (29.4% vs. 20.8%); however, the safety profile was similar between ADA‐positive and ADA‐negative PwHA, overall. No cases of anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity were reported in ADA‐positive participants. Conclusion The immunogenicity risk of emicizumab in phase 3 studies was low. ADAs, including in vitro neutralising ADAs, were not associated with a change in safety profile. Routine surveillance is, therefore, not warranted; however, in cases where a loss and/or waning of efficacy are observed, prompt evaluation by a healthcare provider should be sought.

Many people with hemophilia A (PwHA) undergo surgery in their lifetime, often due to complications of their disease. Emicizumab is the first bispecific monoclonal antibody prophylactic therapy for PwHA, and its efficacy and safety have been previously demonstrated; however, there is a need to build an evidence base on the management of PwHA on emicizumab undergoing surgery. Data from the HAVEN 1-4 phase 3 clinical trials were pooled to provide a summary of all minor and major surgeries in PwHA with or without factor VIII inhibitors who were receiving emicizumab prophylaxis. Overall, 233 surgeries were carried out during the HAVEN 1-4 trials: 215 minor surgeries (including minor dental and joint procedures, central venous access device placement/removal, and endoscopies) in 115 PwHA (64 with FVIII inhibitors), and 18 major surgeries (including arthroplasty and synovectomy) in 18 PwHA (10 with FVIII inhibitors). Peri-operative hemostatic support was at the discretion of the treating physician. Overall, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 33.5 (13.0-49.0) years and the median (IQR) emicizumab exposure time prior to surgery was 278.0 (177.0-431.0) days. Among the 215 minor surgeries, 141 (65.6%) were managed without additional prophylactic factor concentrate and of those, 121 (85.8%) were not associated with a post-operative bleed. The majority (15/18; 83.3%) of major surgeries were managed with additional prophylactic factor concentrate. Twelve (80.0%) of these 15 surgeries were associated with no intra-operative or post-operative bleeds. The data demonstrate that minor and major surgeries can be performed safely in PwHA receiving emicizumab prophylaxis. These trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02622321, NCT02795767; NCT02847637, and NCT03020160.

This study showed that the similar short-term HbA1c reductions seen with both vildagliptin and rosiglitazone treatments were more durable after 104 weeks of treatment with rosiglitazone than vildagliptin. However, this greater durability with rosiglitazone was at the expense of weight gain (almost 5 kg), higher incidences of peripheral oedema and a less favourable plasma lipid profile compared with vildagliptin.

Introduction Severe haemophilia A (HA) has a major impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Aim Assess the impact of emicizumab on HRQoL in persons with severe HA (PwHA) without factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors in the phase 3 HAVEN 3 and 4 studies. Methods This pooled analysis examines the HRQoL of PwHA aged ≥ 18 years treated with emicizumab prophylaxis via Haemophilia‐Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem‐A‐QoL) and EuroQoL 5‐Dimensions 5‐levels (EQ‐5D‐5L). In particular, changes from baseline in Haem‐A‐QoL ‘Physical Health’ (PH) domain and ‘Total Score’ (TS) are evaluated. Results Among 176 evaluable participants, 96 (55%) had received prior episodic treatment and 80 (45%) prophylaxis; 70% had ≥ 1 target joint and 51% had experienced ≥ 9 bleeds in the previous 24 weeks. Mean Haem‐A‐QoL PH and TS improved after emicizumab initiation. Mean (standard deviation) –12.0 (21.26)‐ and –8.6 (12.57)‐point improvements were observed in PH and TS from baseline to Week 73; Week 73 scores were 27.9 (24.54) and 22.0 (14.38), respectively. Fifty‐four percent of participants reported a clinically meaningful improvement in PH scores (≥ 10 points) by Week 73. Subgroups with poorer HRQoL prior to starting emicizumab (i.e. receiving episodic treatment, ≥ 9 bleeds, target joints) had the greatest improvements in PH scores, and corresponding reductions in missed workdays; change was not detected among those previously taking prophylaxis. No change over time was detected by the EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire. Conclusions Emicizumab prophylaxis in PwHA without FVIII inhibitors resulted in persistent and meaningful improvements in Haem‐A‐QoL PH and less work disruption than previous treatment.

2019) Efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis versus factor VIII prophylaxis for treatment of hemophilia A without inhibitors: network meta-analysis and sub-group analyses of the intra-patient comparison of the HAVEN 3 trial, ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare the efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis with that of factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors using two approaches: network meta-analyses (NMA) and additional sub-group analyses from the HAVEN 3 trial. Methods: The NMA used data from trials identified using a systematic literature review and compared bleed rates in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and patients receiving FVIII prophylaxis using a Bayesian, random effects generalized linear model with log link Poisson likelihood. Additional subgroups of the HAVEN 3 trial included here were defined as patients whose dose-taking behavior met either European label or World Federation of Hemophilia guidelines. A negative binomial regression model was used to conduct an intra-patient comparison of bleed rates within the sub-groups, during treatment with FVIII prophylaxis before entering HAVEN 3 and treatment with emicizumab prophylaxis during HAVEN 3. Results: Four studies were included in the base-case NMA. Evidence showed that the total treated bleed rate was lower with emicizumab prophylaxis compared with FVIII prophylaxis (rate ratio [RR] ¼ 0.36 [95% credible interval (CrI) ¼ 0.13-0.95]). Similar associations were observed in sensitivity analyses. The additional HAVEN 3 analyses also showed lower rates of treated bleeds with emicizumab prophylaxis than with FVIII prophylaxis (RRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] ¼ 0.380 [0.186-0.790] and 0.472 [0.258-0.866] in two sub-groups). These results confirm the original HAVEN 3 intra-patient comparison findings. Conclusions: Combined findings from NMA and additional sub-group analyses of HAVEN 3 support the superiority of emicizumab prophylaxis over FVIII prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors. ARTICLE HISTORY