Introduction: Haemophilia is characterized by frequent haemarthrosis, leading to acute/chronic joint pain. Aim: To assess self-reported prevalence, description and management of pain in adult males with mild-to-severe haemophilia and history of joint pain/bleeding. Methods: Participants completed a pain survey and five patient-reported outcome instruments assessing pain, functional impairment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: Of 381 participants enrolled, median age was 34 years; 77% had haemophilia A, 71% had severe disease and 65% were overweight/obese. Many (56%) were not receiving routine infusions; 30% never received routine infusions. During the prior 6 months, 20% experienced acute pain, 34% chronic pain and 32% both acute/chronic pain. Subjects with both acute/chronic pain (vs. none, acute or chronic) were more likely to be depressed (30% vs. 0-15%), obese (35% vs. 20-29%) and have lower HRQoL (mean EQ-5D visual analog scale, 69 vs. 83-86) and function (median overall Hemophilia Activities List, 60 vs. 88-99). Most common analgesics used for acute/chronic pain during the prior 6 months were acetaminophen (62%/55%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (34%/ 49%); most common non-pharmacologic strategies were ice (65%/33%) and rest (51%/33%). Hydrocodoneacetaminophen was the most common opioid for both acute/chronic pain (30%); other long-acting opioids were infrequently used specifically for chronic but not acute pain (morphine, 7%; methadone, 6%; fentanyl patch, 2%). Conclusion: Patients with chronic pain, particularly those with both acute/chronic pain, frequently experience psychological issues, functional disability and reduced HRQoL. Treatment strategies for acute pain (e.g. routine infusions to prevent bleeding) and for chronic pain (e.g. long-acting opioids) may be underused.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease outline strategies for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients with a diagnosis of cancer or for whom cancer is clinically suspected. VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, which places them at greater risk for morbidity and mortality. Therefore, risk-appropriate prophylaxis is an essential component for the optimal care of inpatients and outpatients with cancer. Critical to meeting this goal is ensuring that patients get the most effective medication in the correct dose. Body weight has a significant impact on blood volume and drug clearance. Because obesity is a common health problem in industrialized societies, cancer care providers are increasingly likely to treat obese patients in their practice. Obesity is a risk factor common to VTE and many cancers, and may also impact the anticoagulant dose needed for safe and effective prophylaxis. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the data supporting new dosing recommendations for VTE prophylaxis in obese patients with cancer.

• Collagen 4 binds to the VWF A1 domain, and this binding is reduced or abrogated by select VWF A1 domain sequence variations.• Platelet binding to collagen 4 under flow conditions is dependent on the presence of VWF.Von Willebrand factor (VWF) contains binding sites for platelets and for vascular collagens to facilitate clot formation at sites of injury. Although previous work has shown that VWF can bind type IV collagen (collagen 4), little characterization of this interaction has been performed. We examined the binding of VWF to collagen 4 in vitro and extended this characterization to a murine model of defective VWF-collagen 4 interactions. The interactions of VWF and collagen 4 were further studied using plasma samples from a large study of both healthy controls and subjects with different types of von Willebrand disease (VWD). Our results show that collagen 4 appears to bind VWF exclusively via the VWF A1 domain, and that specific sequence variations identified through VWF patient samples and through site-directed mutagenesis in the VWF A1 domain can decrease or abrogate this interaction. In addition, VWF-dependent platelet binding to collagen 4 under flow conditions requires an intact VWF A1 domain. We observed that decreased binding to collagen 4 was associated with select VWF A1 domain sequence variations in type 1 and type 2M VWD. This suggests an additional mechanism through which VWF variants may alter hemostasis.

No abstract

The comparable results between treatment groups observed from this small trial suggest that TPE with PCT FFP was safe and effective for treatment of TTP.

Data demonstrate challenges of predominantly ankle/knee pain and lower extremity functional impairment in US adult PWH, affecting HRQoL across PROs/HJHS.

No abstract

OverviewVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and life-threatening condition in patients with cancer.1,2 Results from a retrospective study of hospitalized adult patients with cancer with neutropenia (N=66,106) showed that approximately 3% to 12% of these patients, depending on the type of malignancy, experienced VTE during their first hospitalization.1 In a recent health claims database analysis of patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors in the ambulatory setting (N=17,284), VTE NCCN Venous Thromboembolic Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology AbstractVenous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a common and life-threatening complication among patients with cancer. Thromboprophylaxis can be used to prevent the occurrence of VTE in patients with cancer who are considered at high risk for developing this complication. Therefore, it is critical to recognize the various risk factors for VTE in patients with cancer. Risk assessment tools are available to help identify patients for whom discussions regarding the potential benefits and risks of thromboprophylaxis would be appropriate. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for VTE provide recommendations on risk evaluation, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. (JNCCN 2013;11:1402-1429 NCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate. These guidelines are also available on the Internet. For the latest update, visit NCCN.org.