Thromb Haemost 1996; 76(06): 0950-0956
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1650691
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart

Pharmacokinetic In Vivo Comparison Using 1-Stage and Chromogenic Substrate Assays with Two Formulations of Hemofil-M

Christine Lee
The Haemophilia Centre and Haemostasis Unit, Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine, UK
,
Trevor Barrowcliffe
1   The NIBSC, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, UK
,
Gordon Bray
2   The Baxter/Hyland Division, UK
,
Ed Gomperts
2   The Baxter/Hyland Division, UK
,
Anthony Hubbard
1   The NIBSC, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, UK
,
Geoffrey Kemball-Cook
1   The NIBSC, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, UK
,
Patricia Lilley
The Haemophilia Centre and Haemostasis Unit, Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine, UK
,
Dale Owens
The Haemophilia Centre and Haemostasis Unit, Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine, UK
,
Louis Von Tilberg
2   The Baxter/Hyland Division, UK
,
John Pasi
The Haemophilia Centre and Haemostasis Unit, Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 03 May 1996

Accepted after revision 05 August 1996

Publication Date:
11 July 2018 (online)

Summary

In a study to demonstrate the safety and pharmacokinetics (half-life and recovery) of two different method M purified AHF (Hemofil-M) concentrates processed in the USA and Spain, two different methods of factor VIII assay (one-stage clotting and chromogenic) have been compared in vivo. The study was a single centre blinded, randomised, crossover study. Twelve patients with severe haemophilia A (VIII: C <2 u/dl) were divided into two subgroups of six. None had received factor VIII concentrate within 48 h preceding the study. Twenty-four pharmacokinetic studies were performed in the 12 patients. Each subgroup received two different lots of study material (US and Spanish) at a dose of 50 u/kg seven days apart. A second randomisation was nominal potency, high: 1000 u or mid: 500 u per vial. The potency label was a one-stage clotting assay using the mega I standard. A standard pharmacokinetic study was performed over 24 h and each blinded sample was analysed in duplicate by a one-stage clotting (aPTT) and a chromogenic (Chromogenix AB; CS) assay at the Royal Free and NIBSC. Pharmacokinetic modelling was performed. The mean label for Hemofil-M using the chromogenic substrate assay was 79% that using the one stage assay (Mega I standard). The recovery was 17-28% higher measured by chromogenic compared to the clotting assay. Since most clinicians use the clotting assay, potency labelling using the chromogenic assay, will overestimate predicted Hemofil-M recovery by as much as 25%.

 
  • References

  • 1 Barrowcliffe TW. Standardisation and Assay Seminars in Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 1993; 19: 73-79
  • 2 Lee ML, Poon W-Y, Kingdon HS. A two-phase linear regression model for biologic half-life data. J Lab Clin Med 1990; 115: 745-748
  • 3 Matucci M, Messori A, Donati-Cori G. et al Kinetic evaluation of four Factor VIII concentrates by model-independent methods. Scand J Haematol 1985; 34: 22-28
  • 4 Kasper CK, Kim HC, Gomperts ED. et al In vivo recovery and survival of monoclonal-antibody-purified factor VIII concentrates. Thromb Haemost 1991; 66: 730-733
  • 5 Morfini M, Lee M, Messori A. The design and analysis of half-life and recovery studies for factor VIII and factor IX. Thromb Haemost 1991; 66: 384-386
  • 6 Morfini M, Mannucci PM, Longo G. et al Comparative evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of three monoclonal factor VIII concentrates. Thromb Res 1991; 61: 285-290
  • 7 Addiego JE, Gomperts E, Liu S-L. et al Treatment of haemophilia A with a highly purified factor VIII concentrate prepared by anti-FVIIIc immuno-affmity chromatography. Thromb Haemost 1992; 67: 19-27
  • 8 Mikaelsson M, Oswaldsson U, Nilsson IM. Potency and in vivo recovery of high purity factor VIII concentrates (letter). Thromb Haemost 1994; 72: 160-161