Effects of secondary prophylaxis started in adolescent and adult haemophiliacs.
ABSTRACT While primary prophylaxis is a well-established and recommended method of care delivery for children with severe haemophilia, fewer studies have documented the benefits of secondary prophylaxis started in adolescence or adulthood. To evaluate the role of secondary prophylaxis started in adolescent and adult severe haemophiliacs, a retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in 10 Italian Centres that investigated 84 haemophiliacs who had bled frequently and had thus switched from on-demand to prophylactic treatment during adolescence (n = 30) or adulthood (n = 54). The consumption of clotting factor concentrates, the orthopaedic and radiological scores, quality of life and disease-related morbidity were compared before and after starting secondary prophylaxis. Prophylaxis reduced the mean annual number of total and joint bleeds (35.8 vs. 4.2 and 32.4 vs. 3.3; P < 0.01) and of days lost from work/school (34.6 vs. 3.0, P < 0.01). A statistically significant reduction in the orthopaedic score was observed during prophylaxis in adolescents, but not in the whole cohort. Patients used more factor concentrates with corresponding higher costs on prophylaxis, but experienced a better quality of life. With respect to on-demand treatment, higher factor consumption and cost of secondary prophylaxis were balanced by marked clinical benefits and greater well-being in this cohort of adolescent/adult haemophiliacs.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are two main modes of replacement therapy for haemophilia patients: either to stop bleeding (on-demand) or regular infusions of clotting factor to prevent bleeds (prophylaxis). Fifty yr of clinical experience have provided evidence of the superiority of prophylaxis by showing a reduction in bleeds and development of arthropathy. Prophylaxis has been described extensively in terms of efficacy and health-economic aspects; however, on-demand treatment has received less attention. The aim of this study was to critically review the published literature on PubMed and discuss potential gaps of knowledge in on-demand treatment in persons with severe haemophilia without inhibitors by focusing on two key aspects: how on-demand treatment is provided and what outcome measures have been reported. We identified 134 papers of which 112 were excluded. Of the remaining 22 papers, 16 were comparative studies between prophylaxis and on-demand treatment and six were descriptions of on-demand treatment. The results showed limited reporting on data related to the key aspects of treatment on-demand. Early studies looked at degrees of joint bleeds and different treatment regimens in finding the optimal dose. However, from the late 1980s, there was almost no research into on-demand therapy except efficacy and safety studies of new rFVIII products and studies to prove superiority of prophylaxis over treatment on-demand. The success of on-demand therapy may depend on several factors, for example time to initial dose after a bleed and duration of treatment. Data on these key factors are limited and highlight the necessity of research to optimise replacement therapy.European journal of haematology. Supplementum 08/2014; 76:39-47.
- 04/2014; 12(Suppl 3):s554-s562.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hemophilia A is a congenital, recessive, X-linked bleeding disorder that is managed with infusions of plasma-derived or recombinant factor (F) VIII. The primary considerations in FVIII replacement therapy today are the: 1) immunogenicity of FVIII concentrates, 2) role of longer-acting FVIII products, 3) prophylactic use of FVIII in children and adults with severe hemophilia A, and 4) affordability and availability of FVIII products. Improving patient outcomes by increasing the use of FVIII prophylaxis, preventing or eliminating FVIII inhibitors, and expanding access to FVIII concentrates in developing countries are the major challenges confronting clinicians who care for patients with hemophilia A.Expert Review of Hematology 04/2014; · 2.38 Impact Factor