4.3 Article

Real-world use of emicizumab in patients with haemophilia A: Bleeding outcomes and surgical procedures

期刊

HAEMOPHILIA
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 631-636

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hae.14005

关键词

bleeding; emicizumab; haemophilia A; prophylaxis; surgical procedures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Emicizumab is a recombinant humanized bispecific antibody that bridges factor IXa and factor X to mimic the cofactor function of factor VIII. It is approved to prevent bleeding in patients with haemophilia A (HA). Outside of clinical trials, there is limited data on outcomes of patients treated with emicizumab, particularly in children without inhibitors. Aim To report our experience treating patients with emicizumab, including (a) bleeding rates pre and postemicizumab, (b) peri-procedural management and outcomes and (c) serious drug-related adverse events. Methods Multicentre observational study in patients with HA who started emicizumab prior to 15 May 2019. Data collection continued until 15 October 2019 and included demographics, disease history, bleeding events, invasive procedures, thrombotic events and death. Annualized bleeding rates (ABR) prior to emicizumab were compared to postemicizumab. Results Ninety-three patients (including three females) met inclusion criteria, 19 with an active inhibitor. Median age was 8.6 years; patients <12 years without inhibitors (n = 49) accounted for the majority. ABR dropped from 4.4 (inhibitors) and 1.6 (non-inhibitors) to 0.4 (both groups) on emicizumab, P = .0012 and .0025, respectively. There were 28 minor (21 port removals) and two major procedures. Three patients received 1-2 doses of unplanned factor postoperatively to treat minor bleeding events. No patient discontinued therapy, and there were no thrombotic events or deaths. Discussion Our favourable clinical experience with emicizumab is similar to that reported in the clinical trials. Notably, this is the largest cohort of patients <12 years without inhibitors treated with emicizumab.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据