Abstract:Hemophilia A and B are inherited X‐linked disorders of hemostasis, associated with an increased bleeding tendency. Patients with severe hemophilia have undetectable clotting factor levels and experience spontaneous bleeds. In patients with nonsevere hemophilia, the clotting factor levels are 2% to 40% of normal and bleeds predominantly occur after provocative events such as trauma and surgery. Despite this milder phenotype, patients with nonsevere hemophilia may suffer from considerable morbidity and have an i… Show more
“…55 Mild hemophilia B appears to confer very low inhibitor risk. 56 Evidence relating to inhibitors has largely been obtained from patients with severe hemophilia A, in whom the majority of inhibitors develop during the first 50 exposure days, after which the risk of inhibitor development decreases to <1%. 57 In contrast, for patients with nonsevere disease, inhibitor risk has been calculated as 6.7% and 13.3% at 50 and 100 exposure days, respectively.…”
People with nonsevere hemophilia (PWNSH) are phenotypically more diverse than those with severe hemophilia. Perceptions relating to a “nonsevere” phenotype have contributed to fewer research initiatives, fewer guidelines on optimal management, and a lack of standards for surveillance and clinical assessment for affected individuals. In many cases, episodes of abnormal bleeding could, if investigated, have led to earlier diagnosis. Furthermore, the major recent developments in therapy for hemophilia have largely focused on severe disease and, as a group, PWNSH have not been included in many key clinical trials. Benefiting people with severe disease, innovative replacement therapies have generally targeted factor levels that are above those present in a large proportion of PWNSH. Therapeutic advances can lead to improvement in phenotype for people with severe hemophilia over that currently experienced by many PWNSH. As a result, we are approaching a point where PWNSH may, in many countries, have a higher risk of bleeding and restriction in lifestyle than those with severe disease but with more limited therapeutic options. Given the multiple major advances in treatment for people with hemophilia, it is timely to review the aspects of nonsevere disease, to ensure equity in care and management for all individuals with this condition.
“…55 Mild hemophilia B appears to confer very low inhibitor risk. 56 Evidence relating to inhibitors has largely been obtained from patients with severe hemophilia A, in whom the majority of inhibitors develop during the first 50 exposure days, after which the risk of inhibitor development decreases to <1%. 57 In contrast, for patients with nonsevere disease, inhibitor risk has been calculated as 6.7% and 13.3% at 50 and 100 exposure days, respectively.…”
People with nonsevere hemophilia (PWNSH) are phenotypically more diverse than those with severe hemophilia. Perceptions relating to a “nonsevere” phenotype have contributed to fewer research initiatives, fewer guidelines on optimal management, and a lack of standards for surveillance and clinical assessment for affected individuals. In many cases, episodes of abnormal bleeding could, if investigated, have led to earlier diagnosis. Furthermore, the major recent developments in therapy for hemophilia have largely focused on severe disease and, as a group, PWNSH have not been included in many key clinical trials. Benefiting people with severe disease, innovative replacement therapies have generally targeted factor levels that are above those present in a large proportion of PWNSH. Therapeutic advances can lead to improvement in phenotype for people with severe hemophilia over that currently experienced by many PWNSH. As a result, we are approaching a point where PWNSH may, in many countries, have a higher risk of bleeding and restriction in lifestyle than those with severe disease but with more limited therapeutic options. Given the multiple major advances in treatment for people with hemophilia, it is timely to review the aspects of nonsevere disease, to ensure equity in care and management for all individuals with this condition.
“…Prophylaxis with FVIII replacement remains the standard of care for male hemophilia A, as nonreplacement products such as prophylactic emicizumab, given subcutaneously every 4 weeks, are not suitable for acute bleeding episodes or management in major surgery. 80 , 81 , 102 …”
Although inherited bleeding disorders (IBDs) affect both females and males, this review of the preoperative diagnosis and management of IBDs focuses on genetic and gynecologic screening, diagnosis and management of affected and carrier females. A PubMed literature search was conducted, and the peer-reviewed literature on IBDs was evaluated and summarized. Best-practice considerations for screening, diagnosis and management of IBDs in female adolescents and adults, with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) evidence level and ranking of recommendation strength, are presented. Health care providers need to increase their recognition of and support for female adolescents and adults with IBDs. Improved access to counselling, screening, testing and hemostatic management is also required. Patients should be educated and encouraged to report abnormal bleeding symptoms to their health care provider when they have a concern. It is hoped that this review of preoperative IBD diagnosis and management will enhance access to women-centred care to increase patients’ understanding of IBDs and decrease their risk of IBD-related morbidity and mortality.
“…1 Haemophilia treatments are used to prevent and manage bleeding episodes, which may result in long-term musculoskeletal damage if left untreated. 2,3 Given the differences in bleeding prevention, haemostatic efficacy, safety, and other characteristics of available products, as well as variation among people with haemophilia (PWH), such as severity of disease, bleeding and treatment history, bleeding phenotype, inhibitor status, etc. individualised treatment is often preferred to optimally address patients' needs.…”
IntroductionStudies of treatment preferences in haemophilia have been conducted in many countries. This study is the first to examine treatment characteristic preferences among people with haemophilia (PWH) and their caregivers, and physicians in Japan.AimTo examine current treatment preferences of PWH and their caregivers, plus those of physicians at haemophilia treatment centres (HTCs) and non‐HTCs for different treatment characteristics in Japan.MethodsPhysicians listed on a survey panel were invited to participate in the survey and to refer PWH and caregivers to participate in the survey. Web‐based surveys were conducted to examine physician and PWH/caregiver background, prophylaxis background, prophylaxis goals, understanding of haemophilia treatment products, important information sources, preferences while choosing prophylaxis products, understanding of the patient's condition, and potential product switching. A discrete choice experiment exercise was included in the survey.ResultsA total of 107 physicians and 44 PWH/caregivers participated in the study. Key treatment goals of physicians included optimisation of haemophilia management. PWH/caregivers were focused on quality of life and reduced treatment burden. Consistent differences in haemophilia treatment strategies at HTCs and non‐HTCs were observed for prescribed treatments, preferences in choosing prophylaxis products, understanding of patients’ condition, and reasons for potential product switch.ConclusionOur study utilises real‐world survey data and presents preferences for haemophilia treatment characteristics among physicians, PWH and their caregivers in Japan, which could encourage improvements in individualised treatment and disease management. Alignment between treatment approaches at HTCs and non‐HTCs could facilitate improvements in the quality of care for PWH across Japan.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.