OBJECTIVES: To characterize the formation of anti-vatreptacog alfa ADAs in hemophilia patients with inhibitors.

METHODS/PATIENTS: This was a post hoc analysis of adept(™) 2. Immunoglobulin isotype determination, specificity analysis of rFVIIa cross-reactive antibodies, epitope mapping of rFVIIa single mutant analogs and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiling were performed to characterize the ADAs.

RESULTS: Immunoglobulin isotyping indicated that the ADAs were of the immunoglobulin G subtype. In epitope mapping, none of the rFVIIa single mutant analogs (V158D, E296V or M298Q) contained the complete antibody epitope, confirming that the antibodies were specific for vatreptacog alfa. In two patients, for whom PK profiling was performed both before and after the development of ADAs, vatreptacog alfa showed a prolonged elimination phase following ADA development. During the follow-up evaluation, the rFVIIa cross-reactivity disappeared after the last vatreptacog alfa exposure, despite continued exposure to rFVIIa as part of standard care.

METHODS: The prospective, non-interventional explorer6 study included patients ≥12 years old with severe HA, severe/moderate HB or HAwI/HBwI of any severity, treated according to local standard of care (excluding previous/current exposure to concizumab or emicizumab). Baseline characteristics and historical clinical data were collected and patient-reported outcomes, including treatment burden, were assessed.

RESULTS: The explorer6 study enrolled 231 patients with haemophilia (84 HAwI/HBwI) from 33 countries. At baseline, patients with HA/HB treated with prophylaxis had the lowest median annualised bleeding rates (ABRs; 2.0), irrespective of haemophilia type; of these patients, 27.5% (HA) and 31.4% (HB) had target joints. Patients with HAwI/HBwI treated episodically reported the highest treatment burden. Of these patients, 28.5% (HAwI) and 25.1% (HBwI) performed sports activities in the month before screening.

METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3a trial (explorer8) was conducted at 69 investigational sites in 31 countries. Eligible patients were male, aged 12 years or older, and had congenital severe haemophilia A or moderate or severe haemophilia B without inhibitors and with documented treatment with clotting factor concentrate in the 24 weeks before screening. The trial was paused because of non-fatal thromboembolic events in three patients (two from this trial [explorer8] and one from a related trial in haemophilia with inhibitors [explorer7; NCT04083781]) and restarted with mitigation measures, including a revised dosing regimen of subcutaneous concizumab at 1·0 mg/kg loading dose on day 1 and subsequent daily doses of 0·20 mg/kg from day 2, with options to decrease to 0·15 mg/kg, stay on 0·20 mg/kg, or increase to 0·25 mg/kg on the basis of concizumab plasma concentration measured after 4 weeks on concizumab. Patients recruited after treatment restart were randomly assigned 1:2 using an interactive web response system to receive no prophylaxis and continue on-demand clotting factor (group 1) or concizumab prophylaxis (group 2). The primary endpoints were the number of treated spontaneous and traumatic bleeding episodes for patients with haemophilia A and haemophilia B separately, assessed at the confirmatory analysis cutoff in randomly assigned patients. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were two additional groups containing non-randomly-assigned patients: group 3 contained patients who entered the trial before the trial pause and were receiving concizumab in the phase 2 trial (explorer5; NCT03196297), and group 4 contained patients who received previous clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis or on-demand treatment in the non-interventional trial (explorer6; NCT03741881), patients randomly assigned to groups 1 or 2 before the treatment pause, and patients from explorer5 enrolled after the treatment pause. The safety analysis set contained all patients who received concizumab. Superiority of concizumab over no prophylaxis was established if the two-sided 95% CI of the treatment ratio was less than 1 for haemophilia A and for haemophilia B. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04082429, and its extension part is ongoing.

FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Nov 13, 2019 and Nov 30, 2021; the cutoff date for the analyses presented was July 12, 2022. 173 patients were screened, of whom 148 (86%) were randomly assigned or allocated to the four groups in the study after trial restart on Sept 30, 2020 (nine with haemophilia A and 12 with haemophilia B in group 1; 18 with haemophilia A and 24 with haemophilia B in group 2; nine with haemophilia A in group 3; and 46 with haemophilia A and 30 with haemophilia B in group 4). The estimated mean annualised bleeding rate ratio for treated spontaneous and traumatic bleeding episodes during concizumab prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis was 0·14 (95% CI 0·07-0·29; p<0·0001) for patients with haemophilia A and 0·21 (0·10-0·45; p<0·0001) for patients with haemophilia B. The most frequent adverse events in patients who received concizumab were SARS-CoV-2 infection (19 [13%] of 151 patients), an increase in fibrin D-dimers (12 [8%] patients), and upper respiratory tract infection (ten [7%] patients). There was one fatal adverse event possibly related to treatment (intra-abdominal haemorrhage in a patient from group 4 with haemophilia A with a long-standing history of hypertension). No thromboembolic events were reported between the trial restart and confirmatory analysis cutoff.

INTERPRETATION: Concizumab was effective in reducing the bleeding rate compared with no prophylaxis and was considered safe in patients with haemophilia A or B without inhibitors. The results of this trial suggest that concizumab has the potential to be one of the first subcutaneous treatment options for patients with haemophilia B without inhibitors.

METHODS: We conducted the explorer7 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of concizumab in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (group 1) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (group 2) or were nonrandomly assigned to receive concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (groups 3 and 4). After a treatment pause due to nonfatal thromboembolic events in three patients receiving concizumab, including one from the explorer7 trial, concizumab therapy was restarted with a loading dose of 1.0 mg per kilogram of body weight, followed by 0.2 mg per kilogram daily (potentially adjusted on the basis of concizumab plasma concentration as measured at week 4). The primary end-point analysis compared treated spontaneous and traumatic bleeding episodes in group 1 and group 2. Safety, patient-reported outcomes, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were also assessed.

RESULTS: Of 133 enrolled patients, 19 were randomly assigned to group 1 and 33 to group 2; the remaining 81 were assigned to groups 3 and 4. The estimated mean annualized bleeding rate in group 1 was 11.8 episodes (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 19.9), as compared with 1.7 episodes (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.9) in group 2 (rate ratio, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.29]; P<0.001). The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients receiving concizumab (groups 2, 3, and 4) was 0 episodes. No thromboembolic events were reported after concizumab therapy was restarted. The plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over time.