MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417013642 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-4846

Quality of life and functional improvements with efanesoctocog alfa in patients with moderate-to-severe Hemophilia A: A real-world survey

2025· article· en· W4417013642 on OpenAlexaff
Maissaa Janbain, Miguel A. Escobar, Manuel Carção, Nathan Ball, E. Morton, Duygu Bozkaya, Sylvie Bozzi, Nicole Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaemophiliaQuality of life (healthcare)McNemar's testClotting factorFactor IXBody mass indexCoagulopathyEQ-5D

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Hemophilia A (HA) is a rare X-linked bleeding disorder characterized by deficiency or dysfunction of clotting factor VIII (FVIII), resulting in breakthrough bleeding that can cause joint damage and impair patients' quality of life (QoL). Efanesoctocog alfa (Efa) is a first-in-class high-sustained FVIII replacement therapy designed to decouple FVIII from endogenous von Willebrand factor to increase its half-life. It was approved in the United States (US) in February 2023 for once weekly prophylaxis of bleeds in patients with HA without inhibitors. Real-world data on patient experience with prophylactic Efa are emerging. Aim: To assess real-world, patient-reported experiences with prophylactic Efa in individuals with moderate-to-severe HA without inhibitors. Methods: This study used data from the Adelphi Real World Hemophilia Patient Survey, a cross-sectional survey of people with HA receiving Efa, collected between December 2024 and February 2025. Eligible participants were adult males (≥18 years) in the US with moderate-to-severe HA (based on baseline clotting factor levels), who had been receiving Efa prophylaxis for ≥6 months at the time of survey completion. The survey captured patient demographics, clinical and humanistic burden, treatment satisfaction, and treatment patterns. Descriptive analyses were used for continuous and categorical variables. Where applicable, symmetry tests or McNemar tests were used to compare outcomes before and after initiating Efa (significance threshold: p<0.05). Results: Thirty-one patients were included. The mean (SD) patient age was 40.2 (15.5) years, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 28.3 (6.8) kg/m². Most patients were White (80.6%), worked full-time (61.3%), commercially insured (54.8%), and had severe HA (74.2%). The majority (83.9%) of patients reported never having inhibitors. The most recent treatments prescribed prior to Efa were standard half-life products (64.5%), extended half-life products (45.2%), emicizumab (32.3%), and others (6.5%) (groups exceed 100% as multiple treatments were used either prophylactically or on-demand). The median (IQR) duration of Efa use was 388.0 (266.0–557.0) days, and the mean (SD) proportion of doses reportedly taken as prescribed was 95.0% (7.3%). Most patients reported being “completely satisfied” or “satisfied” with Efa in terms of overall experience (93.5%), bleed prevention (96.8%), and improvement in patients' ability to perform physical activity (79.3%) (n=29). When comparing Efa to prior therapies for hemophilia control, 83.9% rated it as better, 9.7% as comparable, and 6.5% as worse. After Efa initiation, relative improvements were observed in daily functioning and physical activity. A greater proportion of patients reported no difficulty with any activities of daily living after receiving Efa (51.6% pre- to 67.7% post-switch; p=0.1250). The proportion of patients reporting difficulty with walking decreased following switching (35.5% pre- to 16.1% post-switch; p=0.0312). The number of patients who often avoided physical activity was higher pre-switch than post switch; (38.7% pre to 16.1% post-switch; p=0.0186). Since starting Efa, a significantly higher proportion of patients reported no longer taking preventive measures (i.e., increasing the regular dose of prophylactic treatment, taking an extra dose of factor, or other), increasing from 19.4% pre- to 58.1% post-switch; p=0.0005. Although not statistically significant, fewer patients reported increasing their regular prophylactic doses or taking extra factor doses ahead of physical activity after switching (22.6% pre- to 6.5% post-switch; p=0.0625, and 32.3% pre- to 19.4% post-switch; p=0.1250, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first real-world, patient-reported outcomes study of prophylactic Efa use among patients with moderate-to-severe HA. Most patients rated Efa more favorably for hemophilia control compared to previous regimens. Improvements were observed in daily functioning, participation in physical activity, and a reduced need for preventive measures and additional prophylactic doses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→