Evidence Hub

Patient data meta-analysis of Post-Authorization Safety Surveillance (PASS) studies of haemophilia A patients treated with rAHF-PFM.

Iorio A, Marcucci M, Cheng J, Oldenburg J, Schoenig-Diesing C, Matovinovic E, Romanov V, Thabane L

Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 2014

1,188 participants

Abstract

UNLABELLED: A Post-Authorization Safety Study (PASS) global program was designed to assess safety and effectiveness of rAHF-PFM (ADVATE) use in haemophilia patients in routine clinical settings. The main aim of this project was to estimate the rate of inhibitors and other adverse events across ADVATE-PASS studies by meta-analysing individual patient data (IPD). Eligible Studies: PASS studies conducted in different countries, between 2003 and 2013, for which IPD were provided. Eligible patients: haemophilia A patients with baseline FVIII:C < 5%, with a known number of prior exposure days (EDs).

PRIMARY OUTCOME: de novo inhibitors in severe, previously treated patients (PTPs) with > 150 EDs.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES: de novo inhibitors according to prior exposure and disease severity; other adverse events; annualized bleeding rate (ABR).

ANALYSIS: random-effects logistic regression. Five of seven registered ADVATE-PASS (Australia, Europe, Japan, Italy and USA) and 1188 patients were included (median follow-up 384 days). Among severe PTPs with > 150 EDs, 1/669 developed de novo inhibitors (1.5 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2, 10.6 per 1000). Among all patients included in the PASS studies, 21 developed any type of inhibitors (2.0%, 95% CI: 0.8%, 4.7%). Less than 1% of patients presented with other serious adverse events possibly related to ADVATE. The overall median ABR was 3.83 bleeds/year (first, third quartiles: 0.60, 12.90); 1.66 (0, 4.78) in the 557 patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,188 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free