Mim8 Bispecific Antibody Prophylaxis in Hemophilia A with or without Inhibitors.
Summary
Mim8 Bispecific Antibody Prophylaxis in Hemophilia A with or without Inhibitors. Original Article Abstract Background Mim8 (denecimig), a bispecific antibody mimicking activated factor VIII, was developed for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with or without factor VIII inhibitors. Methods In this phase 3, randomized trial, we assigned patients 12 years of age or older with hemophilia A with or without inhibitors to receive subcutaneous Mim8 once weekly or once monthly
Content
# Mim8 Bispecific Antibody Prophylaxis in Hemophilia A with or without Inhibitors.
*Original Article*
# Abstract
## Background
Mim8 (denecimig), a bispecific antibody mimicking activated factor
VIII, was developed for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with
or without factor VIII inhibitors.
## Methods
In this phase 3, randomized trial, we assigned patients 12 years of age
or older with hemophilia A with or without inhibitors to receive subcutaneous
Mim8 once weekly or once monthly at a dose tiered according to body weight and
given in a fixed injection volume (0.8 ml). Patients who had been receiving
on-demand treatment before the trial were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to continue
on-demand treatment (group 1) or receive Mim8 once weekly (group 2a) or once
monthly (group 2b). Patients who had been receiving clotting factor concentrates
during a run-in phase were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive Mim8 once weekly
(group 3) or once monthly (group 4). The first primary end point was the
annualized rate of treated bleeding events (those treated with a coagulation
factor product) in an evaluation of Mim8 in group 2a and Mim8 in group 2b as
compared with on-demand treatment in group 1. The second was the annualized rate
of treated bleeding events in an intrapatient evaluation of Mim8 in group 3 and
Mim8 in group 4 as compared with clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis during
the run-in phase.
## Results
Of the 58 patients in the pretrial on-demand treatment cohort, 17 were
assigned to group 1, 21 to group 2a, and 20 to group 2b. The estimated mean
annualized rate of treated bleeding events was 0.57 (95% confidence interval
[CI], 0.25 to 1.30) in group 2a and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.71) in group 2b, as
compared with 15.76 (95% CI, 10.70 to 23.20) in group 1 (relative decrease,
96.4% and 98.7%, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Of the 196
patients in the pretrial prophylaxis cohort, 98 each were assigned to group 3 or
group 4. The estimated mean annualized rate of treated bleeding events was 2.25
(95% CI, 1.37 to 3.71) in group 3, as compared with 4.90 (95% CI, 3.65 to 6.56)
during the run-in phase (relative decrease, 54.0%; Pā=ā0.006), and 1.78 (95% CI,
1.18 to 2.71) in group 4, as compared with 3.12 (95% CI, 2.25 to 4.32) (relative
decrease, 42.8%; Pā=ā0.006). Injection-site reactions were reported in 103 of
4005 injections (2.6%). No patient was reported to have a thromboembolic event
or clinical evidence of neutralizing anti-Mim8 antibodies.
## Conclusions
Among patients with hemophilia A with or without inhibitors, Mim8
prophylaxis was superior to on-demand treatment and clotting factor concentrate
prophylaxis regarding the annualized rate of treated bleeding events. (Funded by
Novo Nordisk; FRONTIER2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05053139.).
---
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2517384