Evidence Hub

Safety and efficacy of marstacimab in patients with hemophilia A and B: a systematic review and meta-analysis

M. Mokresh, O. Alomarı, Sena Mokresh, Cagla Sumeyye Caliskan, M. Ilter

Expert Review of Hematology, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Hemophilia A and B are life‐threatening congenital bleeding disorders traditionally managed with frequent factor replacement therapies, often complicated by breakthrough bleeds and inhibitor development. Marstacimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting TFPI, has emerged as a novel prophylactic treatment to reduce bleeding episodes in patients without inhibitors. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed across multiple databases. Meta-analysis was conducted using R, applying a random-effects model. Results Nine manuscripts were included. Marstacimab significantly reduced the annualized bleeding rate (mean difference: −16.30; 95% CI: [−18.46, −14.15], p < 0.001) and showed a favorable safety profile with most adverse events being mild or moderate, and no thrombotic events reported. The use of a prefilled pen device further highlighted the therapeutic benefits and ease-of-use of Marstacimab. Conclusions This meta-analysis reinforces the efficacy and safety of Marstacimab in reducing bleeding rates in severe hemophilia A and B. The findings support its role as a promising, transformative alternative to conventional factor replacement therapies. Registration The study protocol for this systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), and it was allocated the PROSPERO identification number…

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.

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