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
TL;DR: Radiological and orthopaedic outcome in severe and moderate haemophilia A and B patients undergoing long-term prophylactic treatment were prospectively investigated focusing on the age of onset ofprophylaxis and the number of joint bleedings prior to treatment.
Abstract: Radiological and orthopaedic outcome in severe and moderate haemophilia A and B patients undergoing long-term prophylactic treatment were prospectively investigated focusing on the age of onset of prophylaxis and the number of joint bleedings prior to treatment. We report on 21 patients with severe and moderate haemophilia A and B receiving prophylactic treatment of between 3.1 and 16.1 years duration. Three patient groups were evaluated according to the age at onset of prophylaxis. In group I (n = 8) prophylactic treatment was initiated in the first 2 years of life. Patients of group II (n = 6) received prophylaxis at the age of 3-6 years. Late-onset or secondary prophylactic treatment was started at the age of 6 years and above in 7 patients (group III). All patients received virus-inactivated F VIII or F IX concentrates at dosages of 30-40 IU, in some cases up to 50 IU/kg body weight i. v. three times per week for those with haemophilia A and twice per week for those with haemophilia B. Elbow, knee and ankle joints were investigated at 3-4 yearly intervals according to the radiological and orthopaedic scores recommended by the World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH). The total number of joint bleedings before and after start of prophylaxis were recorded in all patients. In group I 7 out of 8 patients had unaffected joints with constant radiological and orthopaedic scores of zero or 1, after a median of 11.25 years of prophylactic treatment. One patient in this group demonstrated mild radiological alterations (score 4). Patients of group II showed neither radiological nor orthopaedic alterations at study entry. Worsening joint scores could be detected despite ongoing prophylaxis after the 3-year interval (median orthopaedic score 4, median radiological score 8). Treatment group III already showed considerable joint damage at study entry with a median radiological score of 11 (0-33) and a median orthopaedic score of 4 (0-11). Despite prophylactic treatment both, orthopaedic (median 8, range 2-12) and radiological scores (median 19.5, range 2-47) deteriorated after 3 years. Prior to onset of prophylaxis no or only one joint bleeding occurred in treatment group I. In group II, a median of 6 joint bleeds (range 1-8) were reported before prophylaxis was started. Patients of group III usually experienced a median of more than 10 joint haemorrhages (range 6-10 or more). Under prophylactic treatment the number of joint bleedings decreased significantly in groups II and III. However, radiological and orthopaedic scores increased as a sign of progressing osteoarthropathic alterations in patients reporting more than 6 joint haemorrhages before onset of prophylaxis whereas no joint alterations could be assessed in patients with no or only one joint bleeding episode prior to prophylaxis. Even a small number of joint bleedings seems to cause irreversible osteoarthropathic alterations leading to haemophilic arthropathy. Once apparent, further progression of joint damage could not be arrested despite of prophylactic treatment (group II and III). In order to prevent haemophilic arthropathy, effective prophylaxis should be started before or at least after the first joint bleeding in severe haemophilia A and B.
20 citations