Effects of secondary prophylaxis started in adolescent and adult haemophiliacs

Regional Reference Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, University Hospital, Parma, Italy.
Haemophilia (Impact Factor: 2.47). 07/2008; 14(5):945-51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01791.x
Source: PubMed

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: Prophylaxis in adults can be necessary and reasonable for clinical reasons. The aim was to evaluate from an economic viewpoint prophylactic factor VIII substitution in adult patients' with haemophilia in Germany. Patients, methods: A decision model (time frame: one year; perspective: statutory health insurance; reference patient (RP) and 2 patient profiles) was developed. Calculations are based on data from a structured literature search and a pharmacovigilance study: therapy switch on-demand/prophylaxis (OD/Proph). Results: RP: 45 years, 20 bleeds p.a. OD, 16 bleeds avoided with 8.5 I.U./kg/d Proph, additional cost Euro 141 113 p.a.; profile 1:50 years, 55 bleeds p.a. OD, factor consumption per bleed 20 I.U./kg higher than RP, 39 bleeds avoided with 8.5 I.U./kg/d Proph, additional cost Euro 19 134 p.a.; profile 2: 60 years, 35 bleeds p.a. OD, factor consumption per bleed 40-80 I.U./kg higher than RP, 34 bleeds avoided with 11 I.U./kg/d Proph, cost reduction Euro 660 p.a. Conclusions: Prophylactic factor VIII substitution in adult haemophilia patients is depending on the individual clinical situation not only clinically but also economically reasonable. To evaluate this effects in the future comprehensively, longitudinal real-life data from patient-centered care are needed including clinical outcomes, quality of life and adherence.
    Hamostaseologie 11/2014; 34(4):291-300. DOI:10.5482/HAMO-14-03-0017
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In patients with haemophilia A, factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis reduces bleeding frequency and joint damage compared with on-demand therapy. To assess the effect of prophylaxis initiation age, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate bone and cartilage damage in patients with severe haemophilia A. In this cross-sectional, multinational investigation, patients aged 12–35 years were assigned to 1 of 5 groups: primary prophylaxis started at age <2 years (group 1); secondary prophylaxis started at age 2 to <6 years (group 2), 6 to <12 years (group 3), or 12−18 years (group 4); or on-demand treatment (group 5). Joint status at ankles and knees was assessed using Compatible Additive MRI scoring (maximum and mean ankle; maximum and mean of all 4 joints) and Gilbert scores in the per-protocol population (n = 118). All prophylaxis groups had better MRI joint scores than the on-demand group. MRI scores generally increased with current patient age and later start of prophylaxis. Ankles were the most affected joints. In group 1 patients currently aged 27−35 years, the median of maximum ankle scores was 0.0; corresponding values in groups 4 and 5 were 17.0 and 18.0, respectively [medians of mean index joint scores: 0.0 (group 1), 8.1 (group 2) and 13.8 (group 4)]. Gilbert scores revealed outcomes less pronounced than MRI scores. MRI scores identified pathologic joint status with high sensitivity. Prophylaxis groups had lower annualized joint bleeds and MRI scores vs. the on-demand group. Primary prophylaxis demonstrated protective effects against joint deterioration compared with secondary prophylaxis.
    Haemophilia 11/2014; 21(2). DOI:10.1111/hae.12539
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although prophylaxis is a standard of care for young children in developed countries, known to reduce the severity of hemophilic arthropathy, older adults with existing arthropathy have not traditionally used prophylaxis. Recent studies have shown that adults with hemophilia A are increasingly adopting prophylaxis but the characteristics of this treatment in older adults are not well understood. This multicenter observational study was conducted to describe how secondary/tertiary prophylaxis is being used in older adults (≥40 years of age) in comparison to younger adults with severe hemophilia A. Eligible adult (≥18 years of age) Canadian males with baseline FVIII:C ≤2% from the participating centres were observed over a 2 year period. Of the 220 adult severe hemophilia patients enrolled, 70% (155/220) used prophylaxis during the observational period. Only 27% (60/220) are older adults with very few >60 years of age. A lower proportion of older adults use prophylaxis compared to younger adults (58% vs. 75%, p = 0.016), with most patients in both groups using continuous prophylaxis (92 and 94% respectively). When considering all treatment modalities together, younger subjects use more factor concentrate than older subjects (2437 u/kg/year vs. 1702 u/kg/year, p = 0.027); however, older subjects on prophylaxis use 3447 u/kg/year and had an ABR of 12 while those on demand use 560 u/kg/year and had an ABR of 13. A significant number of older adults use secondary/tertiary continuous prophylaxis in Canada, accounting for a significant fraction of factor concentrate utilization.