Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of annualized bleeding rate and utilization of BAY 94-9027 versus three recombinant factor VIII agents for prophylaxis in patients with severe hemophilia A

References

• Mejia-Carvajal C, Czapek EE, Valentino LA. Life expectancy in hemophilia outcome. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4(3):507–509. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01776.x16460431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldenburg J, Dolan G, Lemm G. Haemophilia care then, now and in the future. Haemophilia. 2009;15(Suppl 1):2–7. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01946.x19125934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivastava A, Brewer AK, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, et al. Guidelines for the management of hemophilia. Haemophilia. 2013;19(1):e1–47.22776238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson U, Steen Carlsson K, Jönsson B. Alternative payment models in haemophilia treatment. IHE Report. 2016;10 Lund: IHE.
   Google Scholar
• Konkle BA, Stasyshyn O, Chowdary P, et al. Pegylated, full-length, recombinant factor VIII for prophylactic and on-demand treatment of severe hemophilia A. Blood. 2015;126(9):1078–1085. doi:10.1182/blood-2015-03-63089726157075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahlangu J, Powell JS, Ragni MV, et al. Phase 3 study of recombinant factor VIII FC fusion protein in severe hemophilia A. Blood. 2014;123(3):317–325. doi:10.1182/blood-2013-10-52997424227821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle TE, Reding MT, Lin JC, Michaels LA, Shah A, Powell J. Phase I study of BAY 94-9027, a PEGylated B-domain-deleted recombinant factor VIII with an extended half-life, in subjects with hemophilia A. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(4):488–496.24843882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reding MT, Ng HJ, Poulsen LH, et al. Safety and efficacy of BAY 94-9027, a prolonged-half-life factor VIII. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(3):411–419. doi:10.1111/jth.1359727992112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–947. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.00422999145
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veroniki AA, Straus SE, Soobiah C, Elliott MJ, Tricco AC. A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:47. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0146-y27116943
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Benedict A. Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(6):537–549. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0271-125795232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Lorenzo G, Casciano R, Malangone E, et al. An adjusted indirect comparison of everolimus and sorafenib therapy in sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using repeated matched samples. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2011;12(10):1491–1497. doi:10.1517/14656566.2011.58711921599551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Swallow E, Kantor E, Fan L, Gruenberger JB. Comparative efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials. Clin Drug Investig. 2011;31(9):665–674. doi:10.2165/11592490-000000000-00000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand V, Betts KA, Mittal M, Song J, Skup M, Joshi A. Comparative effectiveness of adalimumab versus secukinumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2017;4(2):349–362. doi:10.1007/s40744-017-0070-628762213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Signorovitch J, Erder MH, Xie J, et al. Comparative effectiveness research using matching-adjusted indirect comparison: an application to treatment with guanfacine extended release or atomoxetine in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid oppositional defiant disorder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 2):130–137. doi:10.1002/pds.3246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pocoski J, Li N, Ayyagari R, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 vs two recombinant factor VIII for the prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A. J Blood Med. 2016;7:129–137. doi:10.2147/JBM.S10407427445511
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decision Support Unit- National Institute for Healthcare Excellence (NICE). Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE; 2017 Available from: http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/nicedsu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/05/Population-adjustment-TSD-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 424, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Thom H, Jugl S, Palaka E, Jawla S Matching adjusted indirect comparisons to assess comparative effectiveness of therapies: usage in scientific literature and health technology appraisals. Paper presented at: ISPOR 21st Annual International Meeting May 2016; 2016; Washington, DC. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1723
   Google Scholar
• Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935–945. doi:10.2165/11538370-000000000-0000020831302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Highlights of prescribing information: ELOCTATE (antihemophilic factor [recombinant], FC fusion protein); 2014 Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/LicensedProductsBLAs/FractionatedPlasmaProducts/UCM400192.pdf. Accessed 615, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Tarantino MD, Collins PW, Hay CR, et al. Clinical evaluation of an advanced category antihaemophilic factor prepared using a plasma/albumin-free method: pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety in previously treated patients with haemophilia A. Haemophilia. 2004;10(5):428–437. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2516.2004.00932.x15357767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentino LA, Mamonov V, Hellmann A, et al. A randomized comparison of two prophylaxis regimens and a paired comparison of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments in hemophilia A management. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(3):359–367. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04611.x22212248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Hemophilia Foundation. National hemophilia foundation: MASAC recommendations; 2017 Available from: https://www.hemophilia.org/Researchers-Healthcare-Providers/Medical-and-Scientific-Advisory-Council-MASAC/MASAC-Recommendations. Accessed 66, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• O’Mahony B, Dolan G, Nugent D, Goodman C; International Haemophilia Access Strategy C. Patient-centred value framework for haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2018;24:873–879. doi:10.1111/hae.1345629626368
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US National Library of Medicine. FDAAA 801 and the final rule; 2018 Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa. Accessed 123, 2019.
   Google Scholar