Development of inhibitors against factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX) in haemophilia patients is one of the most serious complications of repeated exposure to replacement therapy and has major clinical and economic consequences. To evaluate the relationship between inhibitor status of haemophilia patients and their quality of life (QoL) and degree of arthropathy and to compare the orthopaedic status of patients with/without inhibitors. An observational, cross-sectional, case control study enrolling: group A (n = 38), males aged 14-35 years, with severe congenital haemophilia A or B who had inhibitors against FVIII/FIX >5 years; group B (n = 41), as group A, but aged 36-65 years and group C (n = 49), as group A, but without inhibitors. Socio-demographics: medical history, clinical characteristics and QoL were assessed. In groups A and B, 16% and 27% were hospitalized for orthopaedic procedures vs. 4% in group C. Patient mobility was also severely reduced in groups A and B, with 24% and 22% using wheelchairs vs. 4% in group C, and 50% and 51% needing a walking aid vs. 29% in group C. Significantly more joint pain was reported by patients in group A vs. those in group C; clinical/radiological orthopaedic scores were also worse in group A vs. group C. Significantly more joint abnormality was reported by patients in group A vs. group C. The burden of orthopaedic complications and the impact on QoL are more severe in haemophilia patients who have developed inhibitors than in those without inhibitors.

Summary.  Although most surgical and invasive procedures can be performed safely in patients with haemophilia, the optimal level and duration of replacement therapy required to prevent bleeding complications have not been established conclusively. For providing more insight into optimal therapy during invasive procedures, a literature review of surgical procedures in patients with haemophilia was conducted. Concomitantly, current practice was surveyed in 26 European Haemophilia Comprehensive Care Centres, representing 15 different countries. The review identified 110 original papers published between 1965 and 2007. Of these, only two studies were randomized controlled trials. Target levels and the duration of replacement therapy in the published studies were as follows. For major orthopaedic surgery: preoperative targets were 80–90%; postoperative targets showed a high degree of variation, with trough levels ranging from 20% to 80%, duration 10–14 days; for liver biopsy, 70–100%, 1–7 days; tonsillectomy: 90–100%, 5–11 days; indwelling venous access device insertion: 100%, 3–10 days; circumcision: 50–60%, 2–4 days; dental surgery: 30–50%, single treatment. With the exception of dental surgery, current practice in Europe, as assessed by the survey, was largely in agreement with published data. In conclusion, this study provides both a comprehensive review and a large survey of replacement therapy in patients with haemophilia undergoing invasive procedures; these data have informed the consensus practical treatment recommendations made in this paper. This study highlights the need for better‐designed studies in order to better define minimal haemostatic levels of replacement therapy and optimal treatment duration.

Previous studies on the pattern of joint bleeding in patients with haemophilia have reported that the knee joint is most frequently affected. Home treatment data reporting bleeding frequency and location collected from 100 patients registered at six haemophilia centres in the UK have been analysed to determine current patterns of bleeding. Bleeding frequency has markedly decreased although bleeding into joints remains the main characteristic of haemophilia. However, the ankle joint has replaced the knee joint as the most common joint affected. Furthermore, it seems that the frequency of knee joint bleeding is also less than the elbow joint suggesting that the traditional pattern of joint bleeding in haemophilia has now changed significantly.

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is thought to playa key role in the pathogenesis of cerebral malaria. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of an anti-TNF monoclonal antibody (B-C7) comprised 610 Gambian children with cerebral malaria, with mortality and residual neurologic sequelae as primary study end points. Sixty (19.9%) of 302 children who received B-C7 died compared with 64 (20.8%) of 308 children who received placebo (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.42). Residual neurologic sequelae were detected in 15 (6.8%) of 221 survivors from the B-C7 group and in 5 (2.2%) of 225 survivors of the placebo group (adjusted OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.08-10.4). The monoclonal antibody used in this study did not improve survival in cerebral malaria and was associated with a significant increase in neurologic sequelae. A possible explanation of the latter observation is that the antibody acts to retain TNF within the circulation and thereby prolongs its effects on vascular endothelium. Cerebral malaria in children has a case fatality rate of 10%-30% despite effective antimalarial treatment [1, 2]. Deaths in cases of cerebral malaria occur frequently in the first hours after admission, before antimalarial therapy has become effective. Recently, it has been shown that a fast-acting antimalarial agent, artemether, did not change this pattern, nor did it improve outcome [3]. Thus, there is a need to develop new forms of therapy for cerebral malaria. These should have antidisease properties and a fast onset of action and be given in conjunction with conventional antimalarial treatment. Recent studies strongly suggest that tumor necrosis factor (TNF) plays a key role in the pathogenesis of cerebral malaria. In clinical studies, an association has been found between plasma TNF levels and disease severity and outcome [4, 5], and it has been shown that children homozygous for the TNF2 allele, which has been associated with high TNF production, are more likely to develop cerebral malaria and die as a conse

Haemophilia. 2020;26:17-24.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hae | 17 | INTRODUC TI ONCurrent prophylaxis protocols for haemophilia A are designed conservatively, with a minimal goal of achieving factor VIII (FVIII) trough levels of ≥1%. This threshold was originally selected based on generally favourable outcomes from early cryoprecipitate studies that targeted trough FVIII levels of 1%-3%, supportive evidence that moderate haemophilia was associated with fewer bleeds and better preserved joint function than severe haemophilia, and limitations in plasma resources at the time. 1-3 However, persons with haemophilia (PwH) who are maintained at 1% FVIII continue to experience spontaneous bleeding and remain at higher risk for injury with daily activities. 4 Furthermore, current prophylaxis regimens do not prevent haemophilic arthropathy over a PwH's lifetime. 5 With the growing availability of current therapies, the validity of the 1% threshold has come under scrutiny, accompanied by the proposal to target higher thresholds ≥15%. 6 Recent success in clinical development of haemophilia therapies opens an era of new possibilities and holds great promise for people Abstract Historically, treatment based on the availability of clotting factor replacement has resulted in an arcane guideline for the correction of factor deficiencies in people with haemophilia (PwH). While all other disease entities seek to restore function to a normal level, PwH are restricted to factor nadirs still equivalent to mild or moderate disease, resulting in continued risk of bleeding. A new treatment paradigm is needed based on the defined needs of PwH. A treatment model was developed by a panel of haemophilia providers, patient advocates and health economists to establish specific treatment milestones and targeted outcomes. The panel defined a series of treatment milestones to characterize the activity and outcomes linked to level of factor deficiency correction. All agreed that the ultimate goal should be 'functional cure' and 'health equity'. Seven levels to achieving a functional cure were identified, (a) Sustain life; (b) Minimal joint impairment; (c) Freedom from any spontaneous bleeds;(d) Attainment of 'normal' mobility; (e) Able to sustain minor trauma without additional intervention; (f) Ability to sustain major surgery or trauma; and (g) Normal haemostasis. A parallel set of patient-reported outcomes to achieve health equity was identified. These guidelines are now comparable with other disorders where the goal is to replace missing proteins to attain normal activity levels. As we are no longer limited by plasma supply due to the manufacture of recombinant factors, mimetics, and the early success of gene therapy, health equity is now achievable. K E Y W O R D Shaemophilia, outcomes, prophylaxis, replacement factor How to cite this article: Skinner MW, Nugent D, Wilton P, et al.Achieving the unimaginable: Health equity in haemophilia.

Joint pain is common in haemophilia and may be acute or chronic. Effective pain management in haemophilia is essential to reduce the burden that pain imposes on patients. However, the choice of appropriate pain-relieving measures is challenging, as there is a complex interplay of factors affecting pain perception. This can manifest as differences in patients’ experiences and response to pain, which require an individualized approach to pain management. Prophylaxis with factor replacement reduces the likelihood of bleeds and bleed-related pain, whereas on-demand therapy ensures rapid bleed resolution and pain relief. Although use of replacement or bypassing therapy is often the first intervention for pain, additional pain relief strategies may be required. There is an array of analgesic options, but consideration should be paid to the adverse effects of each class. Nevertheless, a combination of medications that act at different points in the pain pathway may be beneficial. Nonpharmacological measures may also help patients and include active coping strategies; rest, ice, compression, and elevation; complementary therapies; and physiotherapy. Joint aspiration may also reduce acute joint pain, and joint steroid injections may alleviate chronic pain. In the longer term, increasing use of prophylaxis or performing surgery may be necessary to reduce the burden of pain caused by the degenerative effects of repeated bleeds. Whichever treatment option is chosen, it is important to monitor pain and adjust patient management accordingly. Beyond specific pain management approaches, ongoing collaboration between multidisciplinary teams, which should include physiotherapists and pain specialists, may improve outcomes for patients.

Haemophilia A and haemophilia B are congenital X-linked bleeding disorders caused by deficiency of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) and IX (FIX), respectively. The preferred treatment option for patients with haemophilia is replacement therapy. For patients with severe disease, prophylactic replacement of coagulation factor is the treatment of choice; this has been shown to reduce arthropathy significantly, reduce the frequency of bleeds and improve patients' quality of life. Prophylaxis with standard recombinant factor requires regular intravenous infusion at least two (FIX) to three (FVIII) times a week. Recombinant FVIII and FIX products with an extended half-life are in development, or have been recently licensed. With reported mean half-life extensions of 1.5-1.8 times that of standard products for FVIII and 3-5 times that of standard products for FIX, these products have the potential to address many of the unmet needs of patients currently treated with standard factor concentrates. For example, they may encourage patients to switch from on-demand treatment to prophylaxis and improve the quality of life of patients receiving prophylaxis. Indeed, extended half-life products have the potential to reduce the burden of frequent intravenous injections, reducing the need for central venous lines in children, promote adherence, improve outcomes, potentially allow for more active lifestyles and, depending on the dosing regimen, increase factor trough levels. Members of the Zürich Haemophilia Forum convened for their 19th meeting to discuss the practicalities of incorporating new treatments into the management of people with haemophilia. This review of extended half-life products considers their introduction in haemophilia treatment, including the appropriate dose and schedule of infusions, laboratory monitoring, patient selection, safety considerations, and the economic aspects of care.

The standard therapy for patients with haemophilia is prophylactic treatment with replacement factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX). Patients who develop inhibitors against FVIII/FIX face an increased risk of bleeding, and the likelihood of early development of progressive arthropathy, alongside higher treatment‐related costs. Bypassing agents can be used to prevent and control bleeding, as well as the recently licensed prophylaxis, emicizumab, but their efficacy is less predictable than that of factor replacement therapy. Antibody eradication, by way of immune tolerance induction (ITI), is still the preferred management strategy for treating patients with inhibitors. This approach is successful in most patients, but some are difficult to tolerise and/or are unresponsive to ITI, and they represent the most complicated patients to treat. However, there are limited clinical data and guidelines available to help guide physicians in formulating the next treatment steps in these patients. This review summarises currently available treatment options for patients with inhibitors, focussing on ITI regimens and those ITI strategies that may be used in difficult‐to‐treat patients. Some alternative, non‐ITI approaches for inhibitor management, are also proposed.