Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for prophylactic treatment in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background: Patients with severe hemophilia often present with painful joint and soft tissue bleeding which may restrict them from their daily activities. The current standard of care still relies on a regular prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII), which has a high daily treatment burden. Recently, rurioctocog alfa pegol, a third-generation recombinant FVIII with a modification in its polyethylene glycol (PEG) component, has been developed. Several trials have studied this synthetic drug as bleeding prophylaxis in severe hemophilia A. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A. Methods: This study was conducted in conformity with the PRISMA guidelines. Data were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wiley Online Library, and CINAHL (via EBSCOhost). Study qualities were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and Modified Jadad scales. Results: Four studies involving 517 previously treated severe hemophilia A patients were included in this study. The pooled mean of total annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and hemostatic efficacy was 2.59 (95% CI = 2.04–3.14) and 92% (95% CI = 85%–97%), respectively. Only 30 (2.3%) non-serious and one (1.4%) serious adverse events were considered related to rurioctocog alfa pegol treatment. At the end of the studies, no development of FVIII inhibitory antibodies was observed. None of the developed binding antibodies to FVIII, PEG-FVIII, or PEG was correlated to the treatment efficacy and safety. Conclusions: Despite the limited availability of direct comparison studies, our analyses indicate that rurioctocog alfa pegol could serve as a safe and effective alternative for bleeding prophylaxis in previously treated hemophilia A patients. Moreover, it appears to have low immunogenicity, which further increases the safety profile of the drug in such clinical conditions.

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for prophylactic treatment in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background: Patients with severe hemophilia often present with painful joint and soft tissue bleeding which may restrict them from their daily activities. The current standard of care still relies on a regular prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII), which has a high daily treatment burden. Recently, rurioctocog alfa pegol, a third-generation recombinant FVIII with a modification in its polyethylene glycol (PEG) component, has been developed. Several trials have studied this synthetic drug as bleeding prophylaxis in severe hemophilia A. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A. Methods: This study was conducted in conformity with the PRISMA guidelines. Data were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wiley Online Library, and CINAHL (via EBSCOhost). Study qualities were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and Modified Jadad scales. Results: Four studies involving 517 previously treated severe hemophilia A patients were included in this study. The pooled mean of total annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and hemostatic efficacy was 2.59 (95% CI = 2.04–3.14) and 92% (95% CI = 85%–97%), respectively. Only 30 (2.3%) non-serious and one (1.4%) serious adverse events were considered related to rurioctocog alfa pegol treatment. At the end of the studies, no development of FVIII inhibitory antibodies was observed. None of the developed binding antibodies to FVIII, PEG-FVIII, or PEG was correlated to the treatment efficacy and safety. Conclusions: Despite the limited availability of direct comparison studies, our analyses indicate that rurioctocog alfa pegol could serve as a safe and effective alternative for bleeding prophylaxis in previously treated hemophilia A patients. Moreover, it appears to have low immunogenicity, which further increases the safety profile of the drug in such clinical conditions.

Efficacy safety and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for prophylactic treatment in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background: Patients with severe hemophilia often present with painful joint and soft tissue bleeding which may restrict them from their daily activities. The current standard of care still relies on a regular prophylactic factor VIII (FVIII), which has a high daily treatment burden. Recently, rurioctocog alfa pegol, a third-generation recombinant FVIII with a modification in its polyethylene glycol (PEG) component, has been developed. Several trials have studied this synthetic drug as bleeding prophylaxis in severe hemophilia A. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of rurioctocog alfa pegol for previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A. Methods: This study was conducted in conformity with the PRISMA guidelines. Data were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wiley Online Library, and CINAHL (via EBSCOhost). Study qualities were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and Modified Jadad scales. Results: Four studies involving 517 previously treated severe hemophilia A patients were included in this study. The pooled mean of total annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and hemostatic efficacy was 2.59 (95% CI = 2.04–3.14) and 92% (95% CI = 85%–97%), respectively. Only 30 (2.3%) non-serious and one (1.4%) serious adverse events were considered related to rurioctocog alfa pegol treatment. At the end of the studies, no development of FVIII inhibitory antibodies was observed. None of the developed binding antibodies to FVIII, PEG-FVIII, or PEG was correlated to the treatment efficacy and safety. Conclusions: Despite the limited availability of direct comparison studies, our analyses indicate that rurioctocog alfa pegol could serve as a safe and effective alternative for bleeding prophylaxis in previously treated hemophilia A patients. Moreover, it appears to have low immunogenicity, which further increases the safety profile of the drug in such clinical conditions.

Safety of renal biopsy bleeding prophylaxis with desmopressin

Background Percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) is invasive, and bleeding-related complications are a concern. Desmopressin (DDAVP) is a selective type 2 vasopressin receptor-agonist also used for haemostasis. Aim To evaluate the side effects of intravenous (IV) weight-adjusted desmopressin preceding PRB. Methods This was a retrospective study of renal biopsies performed by nephrologists from 2013 to 2017 in patients who received single-dose DDAVP pre-PRB. Results Of 482 PRBs, 65 (13.5%) received DDAVP (0.3 µg/kg); 55.4% of the PRBs were native kidneys. Desmopressin indications were altered platelet function analyser (PFA)-100 results (75.3% of the patients), urea >24.9 mmol/L (15.5%), antiplatelet drugs (6.1%) and thrombocytopaenia (3%). Of the 65 patients, 30.7% had minor asymptomatic complications, and 3 patients had major complications. Pre-PRB haemoglobin (Hb) <100 g/L was a risk factor for Hb decrease >10 g/L, and altered collagen-epinephrine (Col-Epi) time was a significant risk factor for overall complications. Mean sodium decrease was 0.6 ± 3 mmol/L. Hyponatraemia without neurological symptoms was diagnosed in two patients; no cardiovascular events occurred. Conclusion Hyponatraemia after single-dose DDAVP is rare. A single IV dose of desmopressin adjusted to the patient’s weight is safe as pre-PRB bleeding prophylaxis.

Case Report: Hyponatremia Secondary to Desmopressin Administration Prior to Percutaneous Kidney Biopsy: A Case-Based Review

Bleeding remains the most clinically relevant complication of kidney biopsy and several prophylactic approaches were proposed, including desmopressin administration. We present the case of a 60-year-old man with a history of liver transplantation, admitted for the evaluation of a renal dysfunction. As part of our department protocol, desmopressin 60 μg was administered orally, 2 h before the percutaneous kidney biopsy. The patient developed acute, severe, symptomatic hyponatremia (i.e., headache and recurrent vomiting), followed by a life-threatening upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to a Mallory-Weiss syndrome. Although it is often used as bleeding prophylaxis prior to kidney biopsy, data regarding the efficacy and safety of desmopressin in this setting are inconsistent. Accordingly, we performed a thorough literature review of the use of desmopressin as bleeding prophylaxis prior to kidney biopsy, focusing on the incidence of hyponatremia. The reported incidence of hyponatremia (&lt;130 mmol/l) was 7–11%, probably because serum sodium was monitored in few studies. Nevertheless, hyponatremia was rarely symptomatic but, in some cases, like the one presented here, its complications could be severe. Pre-biopsy low serum sodium and estimated glomerular filtration rate as well as high spot urine sodium and non-restricted fluid intake were reported to be associated with hyponatremia incidence. However, the current evidence cannot clearly establish which patients benefit the most from desmopressin use with respect to bleeding complications. We propose that when desmopressin is used for bleeding prophylaxis prior to kidney biopsy, measurements of serum sodium levels, before and every 6 h after, should complement ultrasound and hemoglobin as part of the patient post-procedural monitoring. Also, water intake should be restricted in the day of biopsy. However, this proposed approach should be adequately evaluated in a clinical trial.