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

Authors

  • 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
Further Information

Publication History

Received 03 May 1996

Accepted after revision 05 August 1996

Publication Date:
11 July 2018 (online)

Preview

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%.