This study is the first in a series to assess the psychometric properties of the HJHS, a promising new measure of joint health in boys with haemophilia.

Key Points• High-dose intensive factor VIII treatment increases the risk for inhibitor development in patients with severe hemophilia A.• In patients with severe hemophilia A, factor VIII prophylaxis decreases inhibitor risk, especially in patients with low-risk F8 mutations.The objective of this study was to examine the association of the intensity of treatment, ranging from high-dose intensive factor VIII (FVIII) treatment to prophylactic treatment, with the inhibitor incidence among previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A. This cohort study aimed to include consecutive patients with a FVIII activity < 0.01 IU/mL, born between 2000 and 2010, and observed during their first 75 FVIII exposure days. Intensive FVIII treatment of hemorrhages or surgery at the start of treatment was associated with an increased inhibitor risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.0). High-dose FVIII treatment was associated with a higher inhibitor risk than low-dose FVIII treatment (aHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.0-4.8). Prophylaxis was only associated with a decreased overall inhibitor incidence after 20 exposure days of FVIII. The association with prophylaxis was more pronounced in patients with low-risk F8 genotypes than in patients with high-risk F8 genotypes (aHR, 0.61, 95% CI, 0.85, 95% CI, respectively). In conclusion, our findings suggest that in previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A, high-dosed intensive FVIII treatment increases inhibitor risk and prophylactic FVIII treatment decreases inhibitor risk, especially in patients with low-risk F8 mutations. (Blood. 2013;121(20):4046-4055)

Objective. Repeated hemarthrosis in hemophilia causes arthropathy with pain and dysfunction. The Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) was developed to be more sensitive for detecting arthropathy than the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) physical examination scale, especially for children and those using factor prophylaxis. The HJHS has been shown to be highly reliable. We compared its validity and sensitivity to the WFH scale. Methods. We studied 226 boys with mild, moderate, and severe hemophilia at 5 centers. The HJHS was scored by trained physiotherapists. Study physicians at each site blindly determined individual and total joint scores using a series of visual analog scales. Results. The mean age was 10.8 years. Sixty-eight percent were severe (93% of whom were treated with prophylaxis), 15% were moderate (24% treated with prophylaxis), and 17% were mild (3% treated with prophylaxis). The HJHS correlated moderately with the physician total joint score (r s ‫؍‬ 0.42, P < 0.0001) and with overall arthropathy impact (r s ‫؍‬ 0.42, P < 0.0001). The HJHS was 97% more efficient than the WFH at differentiating severe from mild and moderate hemophilia. The HJHS was 74% more efficient than the WFH at differentiating subjects treated with prophylaxis from those treated on demand. We identified items on the HJHS that may be redundant or rarely endorsed and could be removed from future versions. Conclusion. Both the HJHS and WFH showed evidence of strong construct validity. The HJHS is somewhat more sensitive for mild arthropathy; its use should be considered for studies of children receiving prophylaxis.

Summary. The frequency of joint bleeds and orthopaedic joint scores were evaluated in 121 patients with severe haemophilia who had started prophylactic treatment with clotting factor concentrates at least once weekly before the age of 10. 75 of the patients started before the age of 3, 31 at the age of 3-5 and 15 at the age of 6-9. Each subgroup was evaluated separately. In addition, a regimen of one infusion weekly was compared with that of two (haemophilia B) or three (haemophilia A) infusions weekly in each patient.A significant decrease in the overall number of joint bleeds per year was found after shortening the infusion interval (P < 0·005), but the individual bleeding pattern varied. In survival analysis of the first pathologic joint score event, those who started prophylaxis before the age of 3 had a better outcome overall than those starting at later ages (P ¼ 0·001). However, in subgroup analysis, no significant difference was seen in the annual number of joint bleeds and the development of arthropathy between those starting with, or shifting to, the more intensive regimen before the age of 3 and those that were put on this regimen at the age of 3-5. Age at start of prophylaxis was found to be an independent predictor for the development of arthropathy (P ¼ 0·0002), whereas dose and infusion interval at start were not.Our data emphasize the importance of starting replacement therapy during the first years of life. However, it seems that when beginning the regimen it can be individualized and adjusted according to the bleeding pattern. In this way, the need for a venous access system may be assessed on an individual basis.

Key Points• The inhibitor incidence in nonsevere hemophilia A patients with certain F8 mutations approaches the inhibitor incidence in severe patients.• These findings are highly relevant for clinical practice, as they facilitate identification of high-risk patients based on F8 genotype.Neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) toward factor VIII form a severe complication in nonsevere hemophilia A, profoundly aggravating the bleeding pattern. Identification of high-risk patients is hampered by lack of data that take exposure days to therapeutic factor VIII concentrates into account. In the INSIGHT study, we analyzed the association between F8 mutation and inhibitor development in patients with nonsevere hemophilia A (factor VIII 2-40 IU/dL). This analysis included 1112 nonsevere hemophilia A patients from 14 centers in Europe and Australia that had genotyped at least 70% of their patients. Inhibitor risk was calculated as KaplanMeier incidence with cumulative number of exposure days as the time variable. During 44 800 exposure days (median, 24 exposure days per patient; interquartile range [IQR], 7-90), 59 of the 1112 patients developed an inhibitor; cumulative incidence of 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-6.6) after a median of 28 exposure days (IQR,. The inhibitor risk at 50 exposure days was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.5-8.9) and at 100 exposure days the risk further increased to 13.3% (95% CI, 9.6-17.0). Among a total of 214 different F8 missense mutations 19 were associated with inhibitor development. These results emphasize the importance of F8 genotyping in nonsevere hemophilia A. (Blood. 2013; 122(11):1954-1962 IntroductionPatients with hemophilia A who are treated with factor VIII concentrates are at risk of developing factor VIII neutralizing alloantibodies (inhibitors).1,2 Inhibitor development is one of the most challenging complications in the treatment of hemophilia A, as it increases the bleeding tendency while it renders treatment with therapeutic factor VIII concentrates ineffective. Although inhibitor development is less frequently observed in patients with nonsevere hemophilia A (baseline factor VIII activity of 2-40 IU/dL), the clinical impact can be profound. In these patients, inhibitors may also interact with their endogenous factor VIII, resulting in a decrease of the factor VIII plasma level below 1 IU/dL 1 and major bleeding complications. 4 Identification of patients at risk of developing inhibitors may help to prevent this serious complication. However, currently there are no tools available to predict individual inhibitor risk in nonsevere hemophilia patients.The type of mutation in the factor VIII gene (F8) is an important risk factor for inhibitor development. [5][6][7] Nonsevere hemophilia A is generally caused by F8 missense mutations.8 Despite information on large numbers of F8 mutations associated with nonsevere hemophilia A that is collected in international databases, 9,10 it is not possible to calculate the inhibitor risk for specific F8 mutations, as data on exposure days to thera...

Key Points Compared with intermediate-dose prophylaxis (3 × 1000 IU/wk), high-dose prophylaxis (3 × 2000 IU/wk) resulted in a 66% higher total cost. At age 24 years, high-dose prophylaxis resulted in a small reduction in bleeding and hemophilic arthropathy, but equal quality of life.

Summary. Participants in an international conference on prophylactic therapy for severe haemophilia developed a consensus summary of the findings and conclusions of the conference. In the consensus, participants agreed upon revised definitions for primary and secondary prophylaxis and also made recommendations concerning the need for an international system of pharmacovigilance. Considerations on starting prophylaxis, monitoring outcomes, and individualizing treatment regimens were discussed. Several research questions were identified as needing further investigation, including when to start and when to stop prophylaxis, optimal dosing and dose interval, and methods for assessment of long-term treatment effects. Such studies should include carefully defined cohorts, validated orthopaedic and quality-of-life assessment instruments, and cost-benefit analyses.

Physicians treating young children with hemophilia B should be aware of the potentially life-threatening complication of anaphylaxis. Children with complete gene deletions or major derangements of the FIX gene appear to be at greater risk. Those identified by genotype as being at greater risk may need to receive their first 10-20 treatments in a medical facility equipped for handling such emergencies. Recombinant FVIIa, although not licensed for use in the United States, appears to be the most suitable treatment option for bleeding episodes in such patients.