Evidence Hub

Prospective collection of bleeding rate and factor usage in participants with hemophilia A and B in a noninvestigational product study

Kavakli K, Frenzel L, Antmen AB, Alzahrani H, Matino D, Leavitt AD, Ozelo MC, Astermark J et al.

Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2026

241 participants

Abstract

Background: We report efficacy and select safety outcomes of current factor prophylaxis of adults with moderately severe to severe hemophilia A (HA) or hemophilia B (HB) in a large, prospective, noninvestigational product study.

Objectives: This study established prospective efficacy data on factor (F)VIII/FIX prophylaxis in the usual care setting.

Methods: This prospective, open-label, noninvestigational product, multicenter study (BENEGENE-1) included HA and HB cohorts. Participants remained on their current factor replacement therapy. The primary end point was annualized bleeding rate. Secondary end points included annualized infusion rate of FVIII/FIX replacement therapy. Safety data were also collected.

Results: In total, 241 individuals with HA and 333 with HB were screened, and 101 and 111, respectively, were enrolled in this study. The most common reason for screen failure was adeno-associated virus neutralizing antibody positivity, accounting for 82.1% and 92.3% of screen failures in the HA and HB cohorts, respectively. The corresponding overall mean (SD; range) follow-up duration was 310.8 (209.2; 14-948) and 498.6 (293.4; 117-1269) days. Mean (SD) total annualized bleeding rate and annualized infusion rate were 6.1 (10.6) and 127.1 (51.8) for participants with HA and 4.5 (9.4) and 62.8 (33.3) for participants with HB, respectively. No new safety concerns were identified with FVIII/FIX replacement therapy.

Conclusion: This study provides a robust, prospective,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 241 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