Effects of primary and secondary prophylaxis on the clinical expression of joint damage in children with severe haemophilia A. Results of a multicenter non-concurrent cohort study.
TL;DR: In this article, the role of primary versus secondary prophylaxis in haemophilia A (HA) children was investigated, and the outcome variable was imaging-proven hahemophilic joint damage.
Abstract: Patients with severe haemophilia A (HA) can either be treated by regular FVIII infusions twice or three times per week (prophylaxis), or only in case of bleeding episodes (on-demand). Whereas prophylaxis reduces the number of bleeding episodes and may therefore prevent the development of haemophilic arthropathy, there is still a lot of controversy surrounding recommendations on age and dose at start of prophylactic regimens. The present database study was performed to investigate the role of primary versus secondary prophylaxis in HA children. The outcome variable was imaging-proven haemophilic joint damage. Forty-two children were initially treated with primary prophylaxis following the first bleeding episode, and were frequency-matched (year of birth, catchment area) to 67 patients receiving "on-demand" therapy with an early switch to "secondary prophylaxis". In multivariate analysis adjusted for the HA mutation type and the presence or absence of thrombophilia, the Pettersson score investigated at a median age of 12.5 years in joints with at least one documented bleeding episode was not significantly different between the two patient groups (p = 0.944), and no statistically significant differences were found in patients with target joints (p = 0.3), nor in children in whom synovitis had occurred (p = 0.77). No conclusion can be drawn from the data presented herein whether primary prophylaxis or an early start of secondary prophylaxis is superior with respect to joint outcome in children with severe HA.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Prophylaxis was more effective when started early (≤36 months), with patients having fewer joint bleeds and arthropathy in children with hemophilia, particularly when it is initiated early in life.
397 citations
TL;DR: There is strong evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational trials that prophylaxis preserves joint function in children with hemophilia as compared to on-demand treatment and well-designed randomisedcontrolled trials and prospective observational controlled studies are needed to establish the best proPHylactic regimen.
Abstract: Background
The hallmark of severe hemophilia is recurrent bleeding into joints and soft tissues with progressive joint damage, notwithstanding on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis has long been used but not universally adopted because of medical, psychosocial, and cost controversies.
Objectives
To determine the effectiveness of clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis in the management of people with hemophilia A or B.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register. In addition, we searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL), handsearched relevant journals and abstract books and reference lists of relevant articles.
Last search of Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 07 April 2011.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating people with severe hemophilia A or hemophilia B receiving prophylactic clotting factor concentrates.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.
Main results
Six studies (including 142 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Two compared three-times-a-week prophylactic administration with on-demand treatment in children with hemophilia. Pooled results from these two studies showed a rate ratio of 0.30 (95% confidence interval; 0.12 to 0.76) for all bleedings and 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.63) for joint bleedings favouring prophylaxis. Results on the number of patients with preserved joints after three to seven years of follow-up were not pooled due to significant heterogeneity. Three of the remaining four studies evaluated hemophilia A; one showed a statistically significant decrease in frequency of joint bleeds with prophylaxis compared to placebo, with a rate difference of -10.73 (95% confidence interval -16.55 to -4.91) bleeds per year. Two studies compared two prophylaxis regimens, failing to demonstrate an advantage of one regimen over the other in terms of bleeding frequency. The fourth study evaluated hemophilia B and showed fewer joint bleeds with weekly (15 IU/kg) versus bi-weekly (7.5 IU/kg) prophylaxis, rate difference -3.30 (95% confidence interval -5.50 to -1.10) bleeds per year. Non-significant increases in both inhibitor and infectious complications were observed in patients on prophylaxis, which occurred more often when using long-term venous access.
Authors' conclusions
There is strong evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational trials that prophylaxis preserves joint function in children with hemophilia as compared to on-demand treatment. There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to confirm the observational evidence that prophylaxis decreases bleeding and related complications in patients with existing joint damage. Well-designed randomised controlled trials and prospective observational controlled studies are needed to establish the best prophylactic regimen and to assess the effectiveness of prophylactic clotting factor concentrates in adult patients.
142 citations
TL;DR: This meta-analysis confirms the association between severe haemophilia and low BMD and future studies should investigate fracture rates and interventions to prevent bone loss in persons with haemophile.
Abstract: Osteoporosis is caused by bone mineral density (BMD) reduction. Haemophilia patients are at increased risk of osteoporosis because of decreased physical activity and blood-borne virus infections. This systematic review of the literature aims at evaluating BMD reduction in severe haemophilia patients and its correlation with patients’ characteristics. Seven case-control studies evaluating lumbar BMD values [g/cm2] (all studies), BMI (5/7 studies), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) seropositivity (6/7 studies) in severe haemophilia patients and controls were meta-analysed. Standardised mean difference (SMD) of BMD was used to compare cases and controls. The effect of body mass index (BMI) and HCV infection was investigated by meta-regression. One hundred one adult cases (age 33 ± 8.9) with 101 controls and 111 paediatric cases (age 8 ± 3.6) with 307 controls were available for analysis. Lumbar BMD was significantly lower in severe haemophilia patients than in controls, both in adult (pooled SMD –1.379, 95% confidence interval [CI] –2.355 to –0.403, p=0.006) and children (pooled SMD –0.438, 95% CI –0.686 to –0.189, p=0.001). The reduction in BMD in patients versus controls was not significantly correlated with the reduction in BMI or with the percentage of HCV-infected patients. This meta-analysis confirms the association between severe haemophilia and low BMD. Future studies should investigate fracture rates and interventions to prevent bone loss in persons with haemophilia
86 citations
TL;DR: Evidence from literature and current clinical strategies for prophylactic treatment in patients with severe haemophilia is summarized, focusing on challenges and open issues (optimal regimen and implementation, duration of treatment, long-term adherence and outcomes, cost-benefit ratios) in this setting.
Abstract: A four-decade clinical experience and recent evidence from randomised controlled studies definitively recognised primary prophylaxis, i.e. the regular infusion of factor concentrates started after the first haemarthrosis and/or before the age of two years, as the first-choice treatment in children with severe haemophilia. The available data clearly show that preventing bleeding since an early age enables to avoid or reduce the clinical impact of muscle-skeletal impairment from haemophilic arthropathy and the related consequences in psycho-social development and quality of life of these patients. In this respect, the aim of secondary prophylaxis, defined as regular long-term treatment started after the age of two years or after two or more joint bleeds, is to avoid (or delay) the progression of arthropathy. The clinical benefits of secondary prophylaxis have been less extensively studied, especially in adolescents and adults; also in the latter better outcomes and quality of life for earlier treatment have been reported. This review summarises evidence from literature and current clinical strategies for prophylactic treatment in patients with severe haemophilia, also focusing on challenges and open issues (optimal regimen and implementation, duration of treatment, long-term adherence and outcomes, cost-benefit ratios) in this setting.
67 citations
TL;DR: Recurrent haemarthroses in patients with severe and moderate haemophilia can result in the development of one or more target joints and subsequent degenerative joint disease, which is characterized by physical and physiological changes in articular cartilage, synovium and bone.
Abstract: Recurrent haemarthroses in patients with severe and moderate haemophilia can result in the development of one or more target joints and subsequent degenerative joint disease. This debilitating process is characterized by physical and physiological changes in articular cartilage, synovium and bone. Models of degenerative joint disease have been examined after the addition of whole blood or blood components to cell cultures or animal joints, or by monitoring biomarkers in individuals with and without haemophilia. Inhibition of cartilage-based proteoglycan synthesis and induction of proliferative synovitis are commonly observed in these models of degenerative joint disease. Clinical evaluation of joint disease includes use of specially designed physical examination and radiographic tools. Efforts to prevent or limit arthropathy include the use of prophylactic factor infusion regimens, surgical joint intervention or both.
60 citations
References
More filters
University of Colorado Denver1, Boston Children's Hospital2, Emory University3, Harvard University4, University of Texas at Austin5, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center6, Cornell University7, Tulane University8, Primary Children's Hospital9, University of Pennsylvania10, University of New Mexico11, Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute12, University of Hawaii at Manoa13, Children's Hospital of Orange County14, Oregon Health & Science University15, Children's Memorial Hospital16, Palmetto Health Richland17, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention18
TL;DR: Prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIII can prevent joint damage and decrease the frequency of joint and other hemorrhages in young boys with severe hemophilia A.
Abstract: Sixty-five boys younger than 30 months of age were randomly assigned to prophylaxis (32 boys) or enhanced episodic therapy (33 boys). When the boys reached 6 years of age, 93% of those in the prophylaxis group and 55% of those in the episodic-therapy group were considered to have normal index-joint structure on MRI (P = 0.006). The relative risk of MRI-detected joint damage with episodic therapy as compared with prophylaxis was 6.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 24.4). The mean annual numbers of joint and total hemorrhages were higher at study exit in the episodic-therapy group than in the prophylaxis group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). High titers of inhibitors of factor VIII developed in two boys who received prophylaxis; three boys in the episodic-therapy group had a life-threatening hemorrhage. Hospitalizations and infections associated with central-catheter placement did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions Prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIII can prevent joint damage and decrease the frequency of joint and other hemorrhages in young boys with severe hemophilia A. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00207597.)
1,613 citations
TL;DR: It appears to be possible to prevent haemophilic arthropathy by giving effective continuous prophylaxis from an early age, and preventing the VIII:C or IX:C concentration from falling below 1% of normal.
Abstract: In Sweden, prophylactic treatment of boys with severe haemophilia has been practised since 1958 in an attempt to convert the disease from a severe to a milder form. The present study population consisted of 60 severe haemophiliacs (52 A, 8 B), aged 3-32 years. Treatment is started when the boys are 1-2 years of age, the regimens used being 24-40 IU F VIII kg-1 three times weekly in haemophilia-A cases (i.e. greater than 2000 IU kg-1 annually) and 25-40 IU F IX kg-1 twice weekly in haemophilia-B cases. The orthopaedic and radiological joint scores (maximum scores of 90 and 78, respectively) are evaluated as recommended by the World Federation of Haemophilia. Of those subjects aged 3-17 years, 29 out of 35 individuals had joint scores of zero. The oldest group had only minor joint defects. The VIII:C and IX:C concentrations had usually not fallen below 1% of normal. All 60 patients are able to lead normal lives. In conclusion, it appears to be possible to prevent haemophilic arthropathy by giving effective continuous prophylaxis from an early age, and preventing the VIII:C or IX:C concentration from falling below 1% of normal.
928 citations
TL;DR: The findings suggest that the previously reported associated between an early age at first exposure and the risk of inhibitor development is largely explained by early, intensive treatment, and early, regular prophylaxis may protect patients with hemophilia against the development of inhibitors.
455 citations
TL;DR: Participants in an international conference on prophylactic therapy for severe haemophilia developed a consensus summary of the findings and conclusions of the conference, and agreed upon revised definitions for primary and secondary Prophylaxis and made recommendations concerning the need for an international system of pharmacovigilance.
Abstract: Participants in an international conference on prophylactic therapy for severe haemophilia developed a consensus summary of the findings and conclusions of the conference. In the consensus, participants agreed upon revised definitions for primary and secondary prophylaxis and also made recommendations concerning the need for an international system of pharmacovigilance. Considerations on starting prophylaxis, monitoring outcomes, and individualizing treatment regimens were discussed. Several research questions were identified as needing further investigation, including when to start and when to stop prophylaxis, optimal dosing and dose interval, and methods for assessment of long-term treatment effects. Such studies should include carefully defined cohorts, validated orthopaedic and quality-of-life assessment instruments, and cost-benefit analyses.
271 citations
TL;DR: The frequency of joint bleeds and orthopaedic joint scores were evaluated in 121 patients with severe haemophilia who had started prophylactic treatment with clotting factor concentrates at least once weekly before the age of 10.
Abstract: The frequency of joint bleeds and orthopaedic joint scores were evaluated in 121 patients with severe haemophilia who had started prophylactic treatment with clotting factor concentrates at least once weekly before the age of 10. 75 of the patients started before the age of 3, 31 at the age of 3-5 and 15 at the age of 6-9. Each subgroup was evaluated separately. In addition, a regimen of one infusion weekly was compared with that of two (haemophilia B) or three (haemophilia A) infusions weekly in each patient. A significant decrease in the overall number of joint bleeds per year was found after shortening the infusion interval (P<0.005), but the individual bleeding pattern varied. In survival analysis of the first pathologic joint score event, those who started prophylaxis before the age of 3 had a better outcome overall than those starting at later ages (P=0.001). However, in subgroup analysis, no significant difference was seen in the annual number of joint bleeds and the development of arthropathy between those starting with, or shifting to, the more intensive regimen before the age of 3 and those that were put on this regimen at the age of 3-5. Age at start of prophylaxis was found to be an independent predictor for the development of arthropathy (P=0.0002), whereas dose and infusion interval at start were not. Our data emphasize the importance of starting replacement therapy during the first years of life. However, it seems that when beginning the regimen it can be individualized and adjusted according to the bleeding pattern. In this way, the need for a venous access system may be assessed on an individual basis.
267 citations