Backgound
Infusion of bypassing agents, such as recombinant activated FVII (rFVIIa) and plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrate (APCC), are suggested as alternative therapies to factor VIII (haemophilia A) or IX (haemophilia B) for individuals who no longer respond to these treatments because they develop inhibitory antibodies. The ultimate goal of treatment is to preserve the individual's joints, otherwise destroyed by recurrent bleeds. We therefore evaluated the effectiveness and safety of bypassing agents when used to prevent, as compared to treat, bleeds. We also compared different doses of bypassing agents in men with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors as a preventative (prophylactic) therapy.
Search date
The evidence is current to 12 December 2016.
Study characteristics
We searched the scientific databases for clinical studies evaluating the effects of bypassing agents in men with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. We included four studies (duration 7 to 15 months), involving 116 individuals. Two studies compared the prophylactic infusion with bypassing agent to on-demand treatment (treatment given only after the bleeding occurred) and two studies compared high-dose to low-dose preventative therapies.
Key Results
Limited evidence showed that prophylactic use of bypassing agents reduced bleeding events, joint bleeding events and number of affected joints. There was no evidence for improved quality of life amongst those who received prophylaxis as compared to those who received on-demand therapy. There was no evidence for a difference in benefits or harms between high- and low-dose rFVIIa for prophylaxis.
Quality of evidence
The overall quality of evidence of these studies was moderate to low as the included studies were small and provided limited information. Also, in one of the studies, up to 24% of the men recruited were not included in the analysis of the results, which further increases imprecision of results.
The evidence suggests that prophylaxis with bypassing agents may be effective in reducing bleeding in males with hemophilia with inhibitors. However, there is a lack of evidence for the superiority of one agent over the other or for the optimum dosage regimen. Further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylaxis treatment on health-related quality of life, as well as the effects of dose of bypassing agents on the outcomes.
People with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors are at high risk of bleeding complications. Infusion of bypassing agents, such as recombinant activated FVII (rFVIIa) and plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrate, are suggested as alternative therapies to factor VIII (haemophilia A) or IX (haemophilia B) for individuals who no longer respond to these treatments because they develop inhibitory antibodies. The ultimate goal of treatment is to preserve the individual's joints, otherwise destroyed by recurrent bleeds.
To assess the effects of bypassing agent prophylaxis to prevent bleeding in people with hemophilia A or B and inhibitors.
We searched for relevant studies from the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched trial registries (16 February 2017) and bibliographic references of retrieved studies were reviewed for potential articles to be included in the review.
Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Coagulopathies Trials Register: 12 December 2016.
We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled studies (cross-over or parallel design) evaluating the effect of prophylaxis treatment with bypassing agents compared with on-demand treatment, or studies evaluating the effects of high-dose compared with low-dose prophylaxis in males of any age with hemophilia with inhibitors.
Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias according to standard Cochrane criteria. They assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.
We included four randomized studies (duration 7 to 15 months) involving 116 males. Risk of bias was judged to be high in two studies due to the open-label study design and in one study due to attrition bias.
Two studies compared on-demand treatment to prophylaxis with bypassing agents. In one study (34 males) prophylaxis significantly reduced mean overall bleeding rates, MD - 7.27 (95% CI -9.92 to -4.62) (low quality evidence), mean number of overall bleeding events per month, MD -1.10 (95% CI -1.54 to -0.66), mean number of hemarthrosis, MD -6.60 (95% CI -9.32 to -3.88) (low quality evidence) and mean number of joints that had hemarthrosis, MD -0.90 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.44). The meta-analysis did not conclusively demonstrate significant benefit of prophylaxis on health-related quality of life as measured by Haem-A-QoL score, EQ-5D total score and utility score, EQ-5D VAS and SF-36 physical summary and mental summary score (low quality evidence for all health-related quality of life analyses).
The remaining two studies compared dose regimens. The results from one study (22 males) did not conclusively demonstrate benefit or harm of high-dose versus low-dose recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) as a prophylaxis for overall bleeding rate, MD -0.82 (95% CI -2.27 to 0.63) (moderate quality evidence), target joint bleeding rate, MD -3.20 (95% CI -7.23 to 0.83) (moderate quality evidence) and serious adverse events, RR 9.00 (95% CI, 0.54 to 149.50) (moderate quality evidence).
The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low due to imprecision from limited information provided by studies with small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data in one study.