Administration of the deficient coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) is a well-established and effective treatment used in patients with haemophilia A. While plasmaderived FVIII (pdFVIII) concentrates have been used successfully for many years, technological advances have enabled the large-scale production of recombinant FVIII (rFVIII), which provides enhanced viral safety and a supply not limited by the availability of donor plasma [1,2]. The adoption of prophylactic treatment regimens in many countries has also provided haemophilia patients with therapeutic benefits through sustaining adequate FVIII levels and reducing the frequency of bleeds. These benefits are especially important in patients with severe disease or those susceptible to haemophilic arthropathy [3].The safety and efficacy of rFVIII has been demonstrated in a number of clinical trials in previously treated and previously untreated patients, and in long-term and home treatment settings [4][5][6][7][8]. Studies have also shown that rFVIII and pdFVIII have similar in vivo half-life and recovery [4], with some data suggesting that mean peak response and recovery values are greater for rFVIII than pdFVIII [9]. The benefits of prophylaxis have been demonstrated in several studies [10,11] in which early onset prophylaxis appears to prevent joint damage [12]. However, age at onset of bleeding is an important consideration, as prophylaxis has no benefit in a non-bleeding child [13].In our haemophilia centre in Mü nster, we initially treat bleeds in young patients with on-demand therapy (after a bleed), and subsequently change to continuous prophylaxis as bleeding episodes accumulate (> 6 joint bleeding episodes per year or recurrence of long-lasting, severe joint bleeds). We describe here our experience over a 1-year period with patients who were switched from pdFVIII to rFVIII after 6 months during either an on-demand or continuous prophylaxis home treatment regimen. These observational data provide a comparison of pdFVIII and rFVIII efficacy that is interesting in the current environment in which the relative merits of different FVIII therapies are increasingly questioned.Data were extracted from diary records for 27 patients with severe haemophilia A (<0.01 U mL )1 FVIII activity). Of these patients, 12 received FVIII treatment on-demand and the remaining 15 received FVIII by continuous prophylaxis. For each type of concentrate, on-demand treatment was provided using a dose of 25 IU kg )1 and continuous prophylaxis involved up to three times per week a dose of 25 IU kg )1 . The date of FVIII administration, dose, product name and lot number were recorded together with the location of the bleed and the treatment regimen (on-demand or continuous prophylaxis). Efficacy was assessed according to the number of infusions required during on-demand or continuous prophylactic treatment, number of breakthrough bleeds and on-demand infusions required during continuous prophylaxis, and total FVIII consumption. A number of different pdFVIII and rFVIII concentrates were...