No abstract

Prophylaxis, or the practice of routine replacement infusions of clotting factor concentrate in persons with severe haemophilia, is a demanding medical regimen. Prophylactic infusions require direct venepuncture or sterile entry into a central venous access device on a regular basis. A telephone survey was conducted to elicit information regarding the barriers to compliance with prophylaxis. The Mountain States Regional Haemophilia and Thrombosis Center has recommended prophylaxis to 52 male patients with haemophilia A or B. The haemophilia nurse attempted to contact all of these patients or their parents, and contact was made with 38 (73.1%) of them. Respondents were asked about the following issues: their decision to initiate prophylaxis; their self‐rated compliance; the challenges, barriers, and facilitators of prophylaxis; and their perceived value of the therapy. Four patients (10.5%) elected not to begin prophylaxis. Of the 34 persons who began prophylaxis, 20 respondents (58.8%) rated their compliance as excellent. Nearly one‐third of the families with excellent compliance (giving 75–100% of prescribed infusions) stated that the time‐consuming nature of prophylaxis was the most significant challenge of the regimen. In addition, 58.3% of the families that gave less than the prescribed number of infusions reported that the time commitment was the primary reason for missing infusions. Knowledge of the benefits of prophylaxis was the primary facilitator of compliance for 44.1% of families. Ninety‐seven percent of respondents rated prophylaxis as very valuable. These data show that despite the known benefits of prophylaxis, it is a demanding medical regimen, and compliance is imperfect. In addition, this study underscores the importance of providing continuing support and education for patients and families who are implementing prophylaxis.

We hypothesized that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans taken prior to radiosynoviorthesis may be predictive of response to the procedure in persons with haemophilia. Specifically, response would be inversely related to the severity of synovial hyperplasia. Radiosynoviorthesis was administered to 21 joints with recurrent haemorrhage (target joints). A detailed self-report of haemorrhage history, joint evaluation with scoring according to the World Federation of Haemophilia orthopaedic joint and pain scales, plain radiographs, and MRI studies of the joints were performed pre- and post-radiosynoviorthesis. To augment comparison of the MRI findings to those assessed using the Arnold-Hilgartner and Pettersson scales, a provisional MRI scale for evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy was designed. We found the MRI findings prior to the procedure were not predictive of clinical response; independent of the severity of synovial hyperplasia, most joints bled less and showed improvement by the WFH orthopaedic score. There was generally no change in the severity of synovial hyperplasia after the procedure. We conclude that MRI evaluation is not routinely indicated prior to radiosynoviorthesis.

This paper reports the findings of a global survey of practice patterns for the management of patients with haemophilia A. A total of 147 haemophilia treatment centres worldwide responded to the questionnaire, supplying data for 16 115 patients with haemophilia A. From these responses, 38% (range: 25-48%) of patients were under 18 years old. Almost half (47%) of patients were reported to have mild or moderate haemophilia A, 48% had severe haemophilia A (no inhibitor) and 5% were inhibitor patients. Less than half of patients with severe haemophilia A received prophylactic therapy (37%, excluding inhibitor patients) and 54% received on-demand treatment; the remaining 9% were inhibitor patients. Primary prophylaxis rates for severe haemophilia ranged from 73% in Sweden to 17% in the USA. Most respondents (80%) ranked infrequent bleeds as one of the top five reasons for not administering prophylactic treatment, followed by venous access (60%) and cost (45%). Of patients with severe haemophilia (non-inhibitor), 32% on primary prophylaxis and 27% on secondary prophylaxis had indwelling catheters. Risk of infection and the patient's inability to maintain the line were the key concerns cited by nurses relating to venous access. The mean ratio of nurses to patients with haemophilia A was 1:69 and nurses felt that they were either fully (26%) or mostly (45%) autonomous in assessment and treatment decisions. Results from this current survey suggest that worldwide research should be continued so as to improve outcomes through the identification of optimal treatment protocols for the management of haemophilia A.

Prophylaxis, or the practice of routine replacement infusions of clotting factor concentrate in persons with severe haemophilia, is a demanding medical regimen. Prophylactic infusions require direct venepuncture or sterile entry into a central venous access device on a regular basis. A telephone survey was conducted to elicit information regarding the barriers to compliance with prophylaxis. The Mountain States Regional Haemophilia and Thrombosis Center has recommended prophylaxis to 52 male patients with haemophilia A or B. The haemophilia nurse attempted to contact all of these patients or their parents, and contact was made with 38 (73.1%) of them. Respondents were asked about the following issues: their decision to initiate prophylaxis; their self-rated compliance; the challenges, barriers, and facilitators of prophylaxis; and their perceived value of the therapy. Four patients (10.5%) elected not to begin prophylaxis. Of the 34 persons who began prophylaxis, 20 respondents (58.8%) rated their compliance as excellent. Nearly one-third of the families with excellent compliance (giving 75-100% of prescribed infusions) stated that the time-consuming nature of prophylaxis was the most significant challenge of the regimen. In addition, 58.3% of the families that gave less than the prescribed number of infusions reported that the time commitment was the primary reason for missing infusions. Knowledge of the benefits of prophylaxis was the primary facilitator of compliance for 44.1% of families. Ninety-seven percent of respondents rated prophylaxis as very valuable. These data show that despite the known benefits of prophylaxis, it is a demanding medical regimen, and compliance is imperfect. In addition, this study underscores the importance of providing continuing support and education for patients and families who are implementing prophylaxis.

In this study, 13 children with severe hemophilia were given routine replacement infusions of factor VIII or IX to treat arthropathy. The children who had a mean age of 6.9 years (range 2.0-12.5) at initiation of prophylaxis had experienced an average of 43 acute hemorrhages (range 8-127) in the year prior to prophylaxis, of which a mean of 24 (range 5-46) were into joints. Therapy was begun in five children, using factor VIII concentrate at 20 U/kg three times a week, and one boy received factor IX concentrate 40 U/kg twice a week. This dose schedule was inadequate for three factor VIII-deficient boys and for the one factor IX-deficient boy. Two of three factor VIII-deficient boys responded to an increase to 30 U/kg prior to the 3-day interval. The dose frequency was increased to three times a week for the factor IX-deficient boy, but he continued to bleed and was taken to synovectomy. One of the original five factor VIII-deficient boys plus seven other factor VIII-deficient boys were begun on factor VIII 20 U/kg every other day; 3 boys ceased bleeding. Trough factor VIII levels were measured 24 hr after an infusion in the five boys who continued to bleed. Factor VIII dosage was adjusted to achieve a trough level of > 1%; 4 responded to an increase in the dose of factor VIII; 1 had an adequate trough but, due to compliance issues, was taken to synovectomy. Serial clinical and radiographic assessments determined stabilization of joint disease in more than one-half of the boys. No child showed reversal of abnormal radiographic findings. Institution of aggressive factor VIII and IX concentrate in children with established hemophilic arthropathy does not reverse joint disease but may alter the clinical course of hemophilia. Future studies to compare this intervention with primary prophylaxis instituted prior to the onset of recurrent joint hemorrhage are warranted.

Lack of detailed natural history and outcomes data for neonates and toddlers with haemophilia hampers the provision of optimal management of the disorder. We report an analysis of prospective data collected from 580 neonates and toddlers aged 0-2 years with haemophilia enrolled in the Universal Data Collection (UDC) surveillance project of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This study focuses on a cohort of babies with haemophilia whose diagnosis was established before the age of two. The mode of delivery, type and severity of haemophilia, onset and timing of haemorrhages, site(s) of bleeding, provision of prophylaxis with coagulation factor replacement therapy, and the role played by the federally funded Haemophilia Treatment Centers (HTC) in the management of these infants with haemophilia were evaluated. Seventy-five per cent of haemophilic infants were diagnosed early, in the first month of life, especially those with a family history or whose mothers were known carriers; infants of maternal carriers were more likely to be delivered by C-section. Involvement of an HTC prior to delivery resulted in avoidance of the use of assisted deliveries with vacuum and forceps. Bleeding from the circumcision site was the most common haemorrhagic complication, followed by intra- and extra-cranial haemorrhages and bleeding from heel stick blood sampling. Eight per cent of the infants were administered factor concentrate within 24 h of birth; more than half were treated to prevent bleeding. This study highlights the significant rate and the sites of initial bleeding unique to very young children with haemophilia and underscores the need for research to identify optimal evidence-based recommendations for their management.

Venous access is essential for delivery of haemophilia factor concentrate. Wherever possible, peripheral veins remain the route of choice, and the use of central venous access devices (CVADs) should be limited to cases of clear need in patients with caregivers able to exercise diligence in CVAD care and should continue no longer than necessary. CVADs are of recognized value for repeated administration of coagulation factors in haemophilia, particularly for prophylaxis and immune tolerance therapy and in young children. Evidence to guide best practices has been fragmentary, and standardized methods for CVAD usage have yet to be established. We have developed management recommendations based upon available published evidence as well as extensive clinical experience. These recommendations address patient and CVAD selection; CVAD placement, care and removal; caregiver/patient guidance; and complications, including infection and thrombosis. In the absence of inhibitors, ports are recommended, primarily because of fewer associated infections than with external catheters. For patients with inhibitors, ports also appear to be associated with fewer infections. Infection is the most frequent complication, and recommendations to prevent and treat infections are supported by extensive clinical data and experience. Strict adherence to handwashing and aseptic technique are essential elements of catheter care. Evidence-based data regarding the detection and treatment of CVAD-related thrombotic complications are limited. Caregiver education is an integral part of CVAD use and the procedural practices of users should be regularly re-assessed. These recommendations provide a basis for sound current CVAD practice and are expected to undergo further refinements as new evidence is compiled and clinical experience is gained.