A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

CHIEF: A retrospective self-control study of children with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors comparing emicizumab to FVIII prophylaxis. | LitMetric

Background: Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked bleeding disorder diagnosed by a deficiency in factor VIII (FVIII). For severe HA (SHA), prophylaxis clotting factor concentrates (CFC) has become the standard of care; however, it imparts a high treatment burden and typically results in an annualized bleeding rate (ABR) of 2-6. Emicizumab, a subcutaneously administered FVIII substitute, has become the de facto standard-of-care prophylaxis for children with SHA in many countries. Previous clinical trials of emicizumab have assessed ABR in patients greater than 12 years without inhibitors, and in children less than 12 years with inhibitors; however, there is little information published regarding the ABR of emicizumab compared to CFC in non-inhibitor SHA children.

Methods: Using a retrospective electronic medical record chart review, we conducted a self-control analysis of 15 patients less than 12 years of age during equivalent periods of CFC versus emicizumab prophylaxis.

Results: The mean ABR on CFC and emicizumab was 1.79 and 1.13 (p = .092), respectively, with a substantially decreased rate of joint bleeds (CFC 0.94; emicizumab 0.33; p = .001) and spontaneous bleeds (CFC 0.79; emicizumab 0.23; p = .008). No safety events were recorded for patients while administering emicizumab. The mean annual cost of CFC prophylaxis was $515,340 (SD $199,540), compared to $328,410 (SD $137,230) for emicizumab prophylaxis (p < .001).

Conclusion: Emicizumab resulted in an improved ABR compared to CFC, especially for joint and spontaneous bleeds, had fewer administration complications, and was substantially less expensive compared to CFC prophylaxis; however, more research is necessary for a complete understanding of the effect of emicizumab on joint health and muscle bleeds.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pbc.31351DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

emicizumab
10
12 years inhibitors
8
bleeds cfc
8
cfc
7
prophylaxis
5
chief retrospective
4
retrospective self-control
4
self-control study
4
study children
4
children severe
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!