For the evaluation of patients on early prophylaxis, information on bleeding should be complemented by objective joint assessment as well as self-reported limitations in activities and quality of life.

Prophylaxis is the recommended treatment for children with severe haemophilia A, but whether prophylaxis should be continued in adulthood is still under debate. Previous studies with limited follow-up have suggested that some patients may be able to stop prophylaxis in adulthood, while maintaining good joint health. This single-centre observational cohort study examined patients with severe haemophilia A born 1970-1988 without inhibitor development, and assessed the long-term consequences of discontinuing prophylaxis. Patient-initiated changes in prophylaxis, including all switches to on-demand treatment lasting a minimum of two consecutive weeks, were recorded from the time self-infusion began until the last evaluation. Sixty-six patients were evaluated at a median age of 32.4 years: 26 % of patients had stopped prophylaxis for a median of 10 years, 15 % had interrupted prophylaxis and 59 % had continued prophylaxis. Annual joint bleeding rate (AJBR), Haemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS-2.1; 0-124 points), radiological Pettersson score (0-78 points) and Haemophilia Activities List score (HAL; 100-0 points) were compared between patients who stopped and patients who continued prophylaxis. Although self-reported bleeding rates and functional limitations were similar in both groups (AJBR: 1.5 vs 1.2 and HAL: 84 vs 84 for those who stopped and continued prophylaxis, respectively), objective assessment of joint status showed increased arthropathy after 10 years of on-demand treatment in patients who stopped prophylaxis compared with those who continued (HJHS: 23 vs. 14 and Pettersson: 16 vs 5, respectively; P< 0.01). These results support continuation of long-term prophylaxis in adults and demonstrate the need for objective monitoring of joint status.

Inter-physiotherapist discrepancies in routine HJHS hamper comparison of scores between treatment regimens. For multi-centre research, additional inter-observer standardization for HJHS scoring is needed.

To facilitate early prophylaxis, step-up regimens starting prophylaxis with infusions 1× week(-1) were introduced. Choice of initial regimen may affect outcome. This study aims to classify initial prophylactic regimens and compare them on short-term outcome. From the 'European Paediatric Network for Haemophilia Management' (PedNet) registry, patients with severe haemophilia A without inhibitors, born 2000-2012, receiving prophylaxis were included. Treatment centres were classified according to the initial frequency of prophylactic infusions and the age at reaching infusions ≥3× week(-1) . Bleeding, and central venous access device (CVAD) use were compared at age 4 years. In 21 centres with 363 patients, three regimens were identified: (i) start prophylaxis with ≥3× week(-1) infusions before age three (full: 19% of centres, 18% of patients); (ii) start 1-2× week(-1) , increasing frequency as soon as possible (asap), reaching ≥3× week(-1) before age three (43% of centres, 36% of patients); (iii) start 1-2× week(-1) , increasing frequency according to bleeding (phenotype), reaching ≥3× week(-1) after age three (38% of centres, 46% of patients). Prophylaxis was started at median 1.2 years on the full and asap regimen vs 1.8 years on the phenotype regimen. Complete prevention of joint bleeds was most effective on the full regimen (32% full vs. 27% asap and 8% phenotype), though at the cost of using most CVADs (88% full vs. 34% asap and 22% phenotype). The three prophylaxis regimens identified had different effects on early bleeding and CVAD use. This classification provides the first step towards establishing the optimum prophylactic regimen.

Bleeding before prophylaxis in severe hemophilia: paradigm shift over two decades Prophylaxis for hemophilia is the scheduled infusion of the missing clotting factor with pre-specified dose, with the intention of preventing bleeds and subsequent hemophilic arthropathy. It is the treatment of choice for patients with severe hemophilia A in countries with available resources.

Future research with more patients on early prophylaxis will have to clarify whether starting prophylaxis before joint bleeding is superior.

No abstract

No abstract