Post Marketing Observational Study of Reformulated BeneFIX

Hemophilia B Clinical Trial

Official title:

Post Marketing Observational Study Of Reformulated BeneFIX

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT00835068
• Other study ID #: 3090X1-4409
• Secondary ID: B1821007
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• First received: February 2, 2009
• Last updated: September 11, 2014
• Start date: January 2009
• Est. completion date: October 2013

Study information

• Verified date: September 2014
• Source: Pfizer
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: United States: Food and Drug Administration
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

The primary objective of this observational study is to collect safety data on reformulated BeneFIX as prescribed in routine clinical practice conditions in France. The secondary objectives are to collect data on the clinical course of individuals treated with reformulated BeneFIX and on the ease of reformulated BeneFIX.

Description:

No sampling

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 58
• Est. completion date: October 2013
• Est. primary completion date: October 2013
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: N/A and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Subjects with Hemophilia B already receiving or starting treatment with reformulated BeneFIX.

• Subjects who have dated and signed the informed consent form.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Ongoing treatment of Hemophilia B by a product other than reformulated BeneFIX.

• Participation in the European prospective registry of patients with Hemophilia B treated with BeneFIX (Wyeth protocol 3090A-101039).

Study Design

Observational Model: Cohort, Time Perspective: Prospective

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Hemophilia B

Intervention

Other:
• No intervention
As it is a non interventional study, patient receives his usual treatment (BeneFIX) as determined by the physician

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Caen Cedex 9
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Chamberry	Cedex
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Clermont Ferrand
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Dijon Cedex
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Le Chesnay	Cedex
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	leKremlin-Bicetre
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Lyon
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Marseille Cedex 05
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Montmorency
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Montpellier Cedex 5
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Nantes cedex 1
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Paris
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Paris
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Rouen
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Saint Priest en Jarez
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Tours
France	Pfizer Investigational Site	Vandoeuvre Les Nancy Cedex

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Pfizer

Country where clinical trial is conducted

France, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Number of Participants With Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) Prior to Safety Amendment	A treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study drug in a participant who received study drug. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. AEs included SAEs as well as non-serious AEs which occurred prior to safety amendment. Prior to safety amendment, only AEs/SAEs deemed related to BeneFIX as per participating physician were collected.	Baseline up to Year 3.5	Yes
Primary	Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) by Relationship After Safety Amendment	AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. A treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study drug in a participant who received study drug as per participating physician. AEs included SAEs as well as non-serious AEs which occurred after the safety amendment. After the safety amendment, all AEs/SAEs were collected irrespective of their relationship to BeneFIX.	Year 3.5 up to 4.75	Yes
Primary	Number of Participants With Events of Special Interest	Events of special interest included allergic reactions, red blood cell (RBC) agglutination phenomena, lack of efficacy/low recovery, thrombotic events and onset of factor IX (FIX) inhibitor. Participants may be represented in more than 1 category.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	Yes
Secondary	Number of Bleeding Episodes	Number of bleeding episode during prophylaxis and on demand period were reported. All periods with at least one injection per week were considered as prophylaxis period. All prophylaxis periods of less than a month were reviewed and cross-checked with the treatment scheme planned at the previous visit to confirm if they were real prophylaxis periods or preventive injections periods. On demand treatment period included the total duration of follow up excluding duration of both prophylaxis and preventive injection treatment scheme. Efficacy population included only those participants who were previously treated with BeneFIX. Here, 'n' signifies participants evaluable for this measure during the specified treatment period. Participants may be represented in more than 1 category.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	No
Secondary	Number of Bleeding Episodes Requiring Treatment by Injection	Number of injections (1, 2, 3 or greater than or equal to [>= 4]) required to treat the bleeding episodes during prophylaxis and on demand period were reported. All periods with at least one injection per week were considered as prophylaxis period. All prophylaxis periods of less than a month were reviewed and cross-checked with the treatment scheme planned at the previous visit to confirm if they were real prophylaxis periods or preventive injections periods. On demand treatment period included the total duration of follow up excluding duration of both prophylaxis and preventive injection treatment scheme.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	No
Secondary	Total Consumption of BeneFIX	Total consumption of BeneFIX included consumption during prophylaxis, on demand, during bleeding episodes, preventive injections, surgeries or immune tolerance.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	No
Secondary	Subjective Assessment of Efficacy by Participant	Participants assessed efficacy of BeneFIX as very good, good, moderate and bad at each follow-up visit. Results were summarized for the latest (most recent), worst and best assessment of BeneFIX done by the participant.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	No
Secondary	Dose Per Injection of BeneFIX	Dose per injection during prophylaxis and on demand period were reported. All periods with at least one injection per week were considered as prophylaxis period. All prophylaxis periods of less than a month were reviewed and cross-checked with the treatment scheme planned at the previous visit to confirm if they were real prophylaxis periods or preventive injections periods. On demand treatment period included the total duration of follow up excluding duration of both prophylaxis and preventive injection treatment scheme. Participants may be represented in more than 1 category.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	No
Secondary	Subjective Assessment of Efficacy by Physician	Participating physician assessed efficacy of BeneFIX as very good, good, moderate and bad at follow-up visit. Results were summarized for the latest (most recent), worst and best assessment of BeneFIX done by the physician.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	No
Secondary	Subjective Assessment of Ease of Use by Participant	Participants assessed ease of use of BeneFIX as very good, good, moderate and bad at each follow-up visit. Results were summarized for the latest (most recent), worst and best assessment of BeneFIX done by the participant.	Baseline up to Year 4.75	No

External Links

•   To obtain contact information for a study center near you, click here.