• Examination and Validation of a Patient-Centric Joint Metric: "Problem Joint"; Empirical Evidence from the CHESS US Dataset

      Burke, Tom; Rodriguez Santana, Idaira; Chowdary, Pratima; Curtis, Randall; Khair, Kate; Laffan, Michael; McLaughlin, Paul; Noone, Declan; O'Mahony, Brian; Pasi, John; et al. (American Society of Hematology, 2020-11-05)
      Introduction Severe hemophilia (FVIII/FIX level <1%) is characterized by spontaneous hemarthrosis leading to progressive joint deterioration and chronic pain in the affected individual. Unless these recurrent hemarthroses can be prevented, e.g. with the use of prophylactic factor replacement therapy, these patients will develop chronic synovitis, pain, and eventually destruction of the joint. Current metrics such as 'Target joint' and other clinical measures of joint morbidity are prevalent and widely accepted. Measures focused solely on bleeding activity, such as the 'Target joint' metric, are arguably becoming less sensitive as current treatment strategies look to significantly reduce or eradicate joint bleeds, though they maintain clinically relevant and complementary to delivery of comprehensive hemophilia care. Key opinion leaders in the haemophilia field have debated the need for a more patient relevant measure of haemophilia-related joint morbidity. 'Problem Joint' (PJ), which is defined as having chronic joint pain and/or limited range of movement due to compromised joint integrity (chronic synovitis and/or haemophilic arthropathy), with or without persistent bleeding was derived through consensus. The objectives of this working group are to examine the usefulness and validity of the PJ metric. Initial research presented here was used to test the sensitivity of PJ as a patient relevant metric with respect to key outcomes for US haemophilia patients. Methods Data on PJs, as well as demographic, clinical and socio-economic variables was captured within the 'Cost of Haemophilia Across Europe: A Socioeconomic Survey' datasets (CHESS: I, II, Paediatric, and US studies). These data contain a total of 992 paediatric (age 1-17) and 2,437 adults (age 18+) with haemophilia from eight European countries and the US. Statistical analysis explored the association of PJ count and location with respect to two key outcomes: quality of life, as measured by an EQ-5D score, and overall work impairment, measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Those with current inhibitors were excluded from the analysis, and the US cohort comprised the focus of this initial research into the topic. Results The US cohort contained information on 345 people with haemophilia (PwH) and captured adults only, with a mean age of 35 years. Approximately, 43% of PwH had one or more PJs. Lower body PJs were more prevalent than upper body: 40% had one or more lower body PJs vs. 27% upper body. The majority of PJs were located in the ankles, knees and elbows. The relationship between EQ-5D and number of PJs showed a negative trend (see Figure 1): the average EQ-5D score was: 0.81 for those with zero PJs (N=197); 0.79 for those with one PJ (N=24); 0.70 for two PJs (N=29); 0.68 for three PJs (N=24) and 0.49 for those patients with four of more PJs (N=59). Similarly, an increase in number of PJs meant greater work productivity impairment versus no PJs recorded: 30.08% (N=102) vs. 19.51% (N=137), respectively. Discussion Results from the US cohort found that an increase in the number of PJs was associated with an increasing humanistic burden in PwH. The proposed Problem Joint definition takes a holistic viewpoint and provides a patient relevant perspective. Further work is planned to evaluate the appropriateness of the measure, and test the sensitivity in European and pediatric cohorts. Disclosures Burke: HCD Economics: Current Employment; University of Chester: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy. Rodriguez Santana:HCD Economics: Current Employment. Chowdary:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire (Baxalta): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spark: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioMarin: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Freeline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Curtis:Bayer: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens and Experiences: Consultancy; USC Hemophilia Utilization Group Study (HUGS): Consultancy. Khair:Haemnet: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Consultancy; HCD Economics: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medikhair: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sobi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Laffan:Shire: Consultancy; LFB: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Sobi: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; CSL: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Roche-Chugai: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Leo-Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Consultancy. McLaughlin:BioMarin: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche/Chugai: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Noone:European Haemophilia Consortium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research Investigator PROBE: Research Funding; Healthcare Decision Consultants: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Mahony:Biomarin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Freeline: Honoraria; UniQure: Honoraria. Pasi:BioMarin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support; honoraria as member of scientific advisory boards and symposia; uniQure: Other: Grants and nonfinancial support , Research Funding; ApcinteX: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees ; Octapharma: Honoraria, Other: Personal fees and nonfinancial support; honoraria as member of scientific advisory boards and symposia , Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Other: Personal fees and nonfinancial support; honoraria as member of scientific advisory boards and symposia ; Catalyst Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and nonfinancial support; honoraria as member of scientific advisory boards and symposia; Biotest: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees and nonfinancial support; honoraria as member of scientific advisory boards and symposia; Alnylam (Sanofi): Other: Personal fees and nonfinancial support ; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; honoraria as member of scientific advisory boards and symposia ; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Personal fees and nonfinancial support; honoraria as member of scientific advisory boards and symposia, Research Funding; Sigilon: Research Funding; Tremeau: Research Funding; Sobi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Roche: Honoraria, Other; Pfizer: Other. Skinner:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spark Therapeutics: Other, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Other, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; uniQure: Research Funding; Biomarin: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Freeline Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. O'Hara:HCD Economics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy.
    • Prophylactic Treatment in People with Severe Hemophilia B in the US: An Analysis of Real-World Healthcare System Costs and Clinical Outcomes

      Noone, Declan; Pedra, Gabriel; Asghar, Sohaib; O'Hara, Jamie; Sawyer, Eileen K; Li, Nanxin (Nick) (American Society of Hematology, 2019-11-13)
      Introduction The treatment paradigm for people with severe hemophilia B in the US typically involves prophylaxis with factor IX (FIX) replacement therapy, the primary aim of which is to provide sufficient FIX levels to reduce the frequency of bleeding events. The clinical benefits of FIX prophylaxis are well understood, however the cost of FIX products as well as costs associated with healthcare resource utilization present a significant burden to the healthcare system. Substantive costs may also accrue in patients who continue to bleed while on prophylaxis, due to the impact on both short and long-term joint-related outcomes. In the absence of existing data in the US, the 'Cost of Hemophilia Across the USA: a Socioeconomic Survey' (CHESS US) study was conducted to establish a population-based estimate of the real-world US healthcare system burden associated with severe hemophilia. Using data drawn from the CHESS US study, this analysis examines the real-world healthcare system costs and clinical outcomes of people with severe hemophilia B on FIX prophylaxis. Methods CHESS US, a retrospective, cross-sectional dataset of adults with severe hemophilia in the USA, gathered information on patient cost via a patient record form. Data on the following parameters are included in this analysis: FIX consumption, annualized bleeding rate (ABR), the presence of one or more chronically damaged joints ("problem joint"), as well as costs associated with annual (prophylactic) factor consumption and hospitalizations (i.e., number of admissions, number of day cases, total inpatient days, and total intensive care unit [ICU] days). All variables report retrospective data of the 12 months prior to enrolment in the study. Results are presented as mean (± standard deviation) or N (%). Results In total, 132 of 576 patients profiled in the CHESS US study had severe hemophilia B. Among them, 77 patients were on FIX prophylaxis, of whom 44 patients reported FIX dosing regimen and were included in the current analyses. Among them, 20 patients were treated with conventional FIX and 24 patients with extended half-life (EHL) FIX products. The cohort has a mean age of 27.64 (± 11.05) and mean weight (kg) of 75.71 (± 13.41). In the last 12 months, the mean number of international units (IU) prescribed for FIX prophylaxis across the full cohort was 257,216 IU (± 213,591), with an associated annual cost of $610,966 (± $495,869). Among patients treated with conventional FIX, mean prescribed FIX was 287,141 IU (± 264,906) at an annual cost of $397,491 (± $359,788), while patients treated with EHL FIX reported a mean prescribed FIX of 232,278 IU (± 160,914) at an annual cost of $788,861 (± $529,258). The cohort reported a mean ABR of 1.73 (± 1.39); 8 (18%) were reported to have a target joint meeting the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) definition; and 11% were reported to have had at least one chronically damaged joint (i.e., problem joint). Healthcare resource utilization associated with bleed events were reported as follows: hospital admissions days [0.18 (± 0.62)]; inpatient days [0.34 (± 1.22)]; and ICU days [0.23 (± 0.86)]. The direct medical cost to the healthcare system was $2,885 (± $7,857; excluding FIX cost) and $614,886 (± $498,839; including FIX cost). Discussion Data from the CHESS US study showed substantial costs and resource utilization among patients with severe hemophilia B receiving FIX prophylaxis, of which the cost of FIX replacement therapy constituted most of the total cost to healthcare system. Although the ABR observed in the analysis population was low, bleed-related hospitalizations comprised a significant non-drug cost to the healthcare system. A proportion of patients also still experienced joint arthropathy. Such substantial clinical and economic burden highlights that unmet needs remain in patients with severe hemophilia B on FIX prophylaxis in the US. Disclosures Noone: HCD Economics: Employment. Pedra:HCD Economics: Employment. Asghar:HCD Economics: Employment. O'Hara:HCD Economics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sawyer:uniQure Inc.: Employment. Li:uniQure Inc.: Employment.
    • Understanding minimum and ideal factor levels for participation in physical activities by people with haemophilia: An expert elicitation exercise.

      Martin, Antony P; orcid: 0000-0003-4383-6038; Burke, Tom; Asghar, Sohaib; Noone, Declan; Pedra, Gabriel; orcid: 0000-0002-2023-5224; O'Hara, Jamie (2020-04-08)
      The benefits of physical activity (PA) for people with haemophilia (PWH) may include improvements in joint, bone and muscle health. However, the factor VIII activity level required to avoid a bleeding episode associated with PA is unknown. To elicit the opinion of clinical experts on the minimum level and ideal factor VIII activity ('level') required to avoid a bleeding episode during participation in different types of PA for PWH. Based on the 2017 National Hemophilia Foundation PA descriptions, clinical experts estimated a minimally acceptable and an ideal factor level at which a bleed could be avoided. The uncertainty around estimates was quantified using an approach to construct a probability distribution to represent expert opinion. Minimum and ideal factor level increased with higher risk PA, whether or not joint morbidity was present, as did the experts' uncertainty in their estimates (ie the range between lowest and highest estimates for minimum and ideal levels). Mean minimum levels ranged from 4% to 48% for low to high risk for people without joint morbidity, and from 7% to 47% for those with joint morbidity. For ideal factor levels, corresponding figures were 9%-52% and 12%-64%, respectively. To support a patient-centric outcome, expert opinion indicates that the clinical norm of 0.01 IU/mL (1%) trough level is insufficient. It is anticipated that introducing a more targeted approach to meet the needs of patients who are increasingly physically active will benefit patients further in addition to recent treatment advances. [Abstract copyright: © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.]