Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May;31(3):557-565.
doi: 10.1111/hae.70021. Epub 2025 Mar 7.

Exploring the Impact of Laboratory Reagents on Pharmacokinetic Profiling

Pierre Chelle  1 , Dagmar Hajducek  1 , Emma Iserman  2 , Alfonso Iorio  2 , Andrea Edginton  1 ; International Prophylaxis Study Group
Affiliations

Exploring the Impact of Laboratory Reagents on Pharmacokinetic Profiling

Pierre Chelle et al. Haemophilia. 2025 May.

Abstract

Background: Laboratory reagents impact measured factor activity of extended half-life (EHL) concentrates. Variability in measurements may lead to under or over estimation of the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, and thus influence clinical dosing decisions. Since 2020, WAPPS-Hemo (www.wapps-hemo.org) has been collecting reagent information when haemophilia centres submit data for PK parameters estimation.

Objectives: To identify the pairs of concentrates (recombinant FVIII and FIX) and reagents leading to significant discrepancies between observed PK estimates compared to WAPPS-Hemo population.

Methods: PK data were extracted from the WAPPS-Hemo database. PK estimates were obtained using WAPPS-Hemo Bayesian engine and analysis was reported for terminal half-life and time to 3% following a 50 IU/kg infusion. Log-deviations between individual PK estimates and WAPPS-Hemo population PK models typical values were calculated to remove known sources of variability. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) regression was performed to assess the reagent effects.

Results: A total of 3853 and 1312 PK estimates were used to analyse reagent effects on the four FVIII and three FIX EHL concentrates, respectively. The reagent was not provided for 2391 PK estimates (46.3%). WFH unadvised reagents were provided for 78 PK estimates only (2.8% of known reagents). For each concentrate/reagent pair recommended by WFH, no significant difference was identified, except for rFIX-Fc whose PK parameters were significantly and clinically under-estimated by STA PTT-A.

Discussion/conclusion: Real-world data provided by haemophilia centres showed high congruence with WFH guidelines, although its sizable number not declaring reagent. WFH-recommended reagents did not significantly impact PK estimation. For rFVIII-PEG, reagents also did not impact PK estimation. Although usually not enough data were available to assess reagents that were unadvised by WFH.

Keywords: assay; factor concentrate; haemophilia; pharmacokinetics; reagent.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. M. Carcao and L. Aledort, “Prophylactic Factor Replacement in Hemophilia,” Blood Reviews 18, no. 2 (2004): 101–113.
    1. M. J. Manco‐Johnson, “Update on Treatment Regimens: Prophylaxis Versus On‐Demand Therapy,” Seminars in Hematology 3 (2003): 3–6.
    1. T. Lambert, G. Benson, G. Dolan, et al., “Practical Aspects of Extended Half‐Life Products for the Treatment of Haemophilia,” Therapeutic Advances in Hematology 9 (2018): 295–308.
    1. G. A. Young and D. J. Perry , I.P.S.G. (IPSG), “Laboratory Assay Measurement of Modified Clotting Factor Concentrates: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Practice,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 17, no. 4 (2019): 567–573.
    1. F. Peyvandi, G. Kenet, I. Pekrul, R. K. Pruthi, P. Ramge, and M. Spannagl, “Laboratory Testing in Hemophilia: Impact of Factor and Non‐Factor Replacement Therapy on Coagulation Assays,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 18, no. 6 (2020): 1242–1255.

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources