4.3 Article

Clinical evaluation of an advanced category antihaemophilic factor prepared using a plasma/albumin-free method: pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety in previously treated patients with haemophilia A

Journal

HAEMOPHILIA
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages 428-437

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2004.00932.x

Keywords

factor VIII; haemophilia A; recombinant antihaemophilic factor plasma-free method; recombinant factor VIII

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The efficacy and safety of an advanced category recombinant antihaemophilic factor produced by a plasma- and albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM) was studied in 111 previously treated subjects with haemophilia A. The study comprised a randomized, double-blinded, crossover pharmacokinetic comparison of rAHF-PFM and RECOMBINATE rAHF (R-FVIII); prophylaxis (three to four times per week with 25-40 IU kg(-1) rAHF-PFM) for at least 75 exposure days; and treatment of episodic haemorrhagic events. Median age was 18 years, 96% of subjects had baseline factor VIII <1%, and 108 received study drug. Bioequivalence, based on area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve and adjusted in vivo recovery, was demonstrated for rAHF-PFM and R-FVIII. Mean (+/-SD) half-life for rAHF-PFM was 12.0 +/- 4.3 h. Among 510 bleeding events, 473 (93%) were managed with one or two infusions of rAHF-PFM and 439 (86%) had efficacy ratings of excellent or good. Subjects who were less adherent to the prophylactic regimen had a higher bleeding rate (9.9 episodes subject(-1) year(-1)) than subjects who were more adherent (4.4 episodes subject(-1) year(-1); P < 0.03). One subject developed a low titre, non-persistent inhibitor (2.0 BU) after 26 exposure days. These data demonstrate that rAHF-PFM is bioequivalent to R-FVIII, and suggest that rAHF-PFM is efficacious and safe, without increased immunogenicity, for the treatment of haemophilia A.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available