Abstract:Management of congenital hemophilia A and B is by prophylactic or on‐demand replacement therapy with clotting factor concentrates. The effects of newer non‐clotting factor therapies such as emicizumab, concizumab, marstacimab, and fitusiran compared with existing standards of care are yet to be systematically reviewed. To assess the effects (clinical, economic, patient‐reported, and adverse outcomes) of non‐clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeding and bleeding‐related complications in people with congenital hemophilia A or B compared with prophylaxis with clotting factor therapies, bypassing agents, placebo, or no prophylaxis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, electronic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. The date of the last search was 16 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating people with congenital hemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors, who were treated with non‐clotting factor therapies to prevent bleeds. Two review authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data for the primary outcomes (bleeding rates, health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events) and secondary outcomes (joint health, pain scores, and economic outcomes). We assessed the mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) of effect estimates, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Six RCTs (including 397 males aged 12 to 75 years) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylaxis versus on‐demand therapy in people with inhibitors Four trials (189 participants) compared emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab with on‐demand therapy in people with inhibitors. Prophylaxis using emicizumab likely reduced annualized bleeding rates (ABR) for all bleeds (MD −22.80, 95% CI −37.39 to −8.21), treated bleeds (MD −20.40, 95% CI −35.19 to −5.61), and annualized spontaneous bleeds (MD −15.50, 95% CI −24.06 to −6.94), but did not significantly reduce annualized joint and target joint bleeding rates (AjBR and AtjBR) (1 trial; 53 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Fitusiran also likely reduced ABR for all bleeds (MD −28.80, 95% CI −40.07 to −17.53), treated bleeds (MD −16.80, 95% CI −25.80 to −7.80), joint bleeds (MD −12.50, 95% CI −19.91 to −5.09), and spontaneous bleeds (MD −14.80, 95% CI −24.90 to −4.71; 1 trial; 57 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). No evidence was available on the effect of bleed prophylaxis using fitusiran versus on‐demand therapy on AtjBR. Concizumab may reduce ABR for all bleeds (MD −12.31, 95% CI −19.17 to −5.45), treated bleeds (MD −10.10, 95% CI −17.74 to −2.46), joint bleeds (MD −9.55, 95% CI −13.55 to −5.55), and spontaneous bleeds (MD −11.96, 95% CI −19.89 to −4.03; 2 trials; 78 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), but not target joint bleeds (MD −1.00, 95% CI −3.26 to 1.26). Emicizumab prophylaxis resulted in an 11.31‐fold increase, fitusiran in a 12.5‐fold increase, and concizumab in a 1.59‐fold increase in the proportion of participants with no bleeds. HRQoL measured using the Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem‐A‐QoL) physical and total health scores was improved with emicizumab, fitusiran, and concizumab prophylaxis (low‐certainty evidence). Non‐serious adverse events were higher with non‐clotting factor therapies versus on‐demand therapy, with injection site reactions being the most frequently reported adverse events. Transient antidrug antibodies were reported for fitusiran and concizumab. Prophylaxis versus on‐demand therapy in people without inhibitors Two trials (208 participants) compared emicizumab and fitusiran with on‐demand therapy in people without inhibitors. One trial assessed two doses of emicizumab (1.5 mg/kg weekly and 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly). Fitusiran 80 mg monthly, emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly all likely resulted in a large reduction in ABR for all bleeds, all treated bleeds, and joint bleeds. AtjBR was not reduced with either of the emicizumab dosing regimens. The effect of fitusiran prophylaxis on target joint bleeds was not assessed. Spontaneous bleeds were likely reduced with fitusiran (MD −20.21, 95% CI –32.12 to −8.30) and emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly (MD −15.30, 95% CI −30.46 to −0.14), but not with emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (MD –14.60, 95% CI –29.78 to 0.58). The percentage of participants with zero bleeds was higher following emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week (50% versus 0%), emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly (40% versus 0%), and fitusiran prophylaxis (40% versus 5%) compared with on‐demand therapy. Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week did not improve Haem‐A‐QoL physical and total health scores, EQ‐5D‐5L VAS, or utility index scores (low‐certainty evidence) when compared with on‐demand therapy at 25 weeks. Emicizum -Abstract Truncated-

Effectiveness of Damoctocog Alfa Pegol to Treat Patients With Hemophilia A Enrolled in the ATHNdataset

The effectiveness and safety of octocog alfa in patients with hemophilia A: up to 7-year follow-up of the real-world AHEAD international study

Safety and efficacy of damoctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis in patients with severe haemophilia A: Results of an interventional, post‐marketing study

Safety and Efficacy of Moroctocog Alfa (AF-CC) in Chinese Patients with Hemophilia A: Results of Two Open-Label Studies

Long-term efficacy and safety of damoctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis in patients with haemophilia A aged 12–<18 years at enrolment into PROTECT VIII

PRO53 CLOTTING FACTOR UTILIZATION AND BLEEDING RATES AMONG PERSONS WITH HEMOPHILIA A FROM A LONGITUDINAL STUDY

Canadian clinical experience on switching from standard half‐life recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII), octocog alfa, to extended half‐life rFVIII, damoctocog alfa pegol, in persons with haemophilia A ≥ 12 years followed in a Comprehensive Hemophilia Care Program in Canada

Individualized prophylactic treatment of patients with hemophilia A to improve effectiveness and optimize product consumption on the example of octocog alpha and rurioctocog alpha pegol. A systematic literature review

A post hoc analysis of PROTECT VIII kids assessing long‐term efficacy and safety of damoctocog alfa pegol in adolescents with severe haemophilia A

Nonacog Beta Pegol in Previously Treated Children with Hemophilia B: Results from an International Open‐label Phase 3 Trial

Damoctocog Alfa Pegol, a PEGylated B-domain Deleted Recombinant Extended Half-life Factor VIII for the Treatment of Hemophilia A: A Product Review

Decreased Bleeding Rates in Patients with Hemophilia A Switching from Standard-Half-Life FVIII to BAY 94-9027 Prophylaxis

Patient Experience With Efanesoctocog Alfa for Severe Hemophilia A: Results From the XTEND-1 Phase 3 Clinical Study Exit Interviews

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Prophylactic Strategies for Hemophilia A Management: A Real-World, Longitudinal Observational Study

Excellent Clinical and Pharmacokinetic Real-World Experience after Switching to Rurioctocog ALFA Pegol

Real-World Unmet Needs in Patients with Hemophilia A without Inhibitors in the US: Results from the PicnicHealth Database

Real‐world effectiveness of eptacog beta in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors: A multi‐institutional case series

Two-Year Outcomes of Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec Therapy for Hemophilia A

Subcutaneous Marzeptacog Alfa (Activated) for On‐Demand Treatment of Bleeding Events in Subjects With Hemophilia A or B With Inhibitors

Real-world insights into the management of hemophilia A in Italy: treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization

Non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B