Effects of primary and secondary prophylaxis on the clinical expression of joint damage in children with severe haemophilia A

Summary

Patients with severe haemophilia A (HA) can either be treated by regular FVIII infusions twice or three times per week (prophylaxis), or only in case of bleeding episodes (on-demand). Whereas prophylaxis reduces the number of bleeding episodes and may therefore prevent the development of haemophilic arthropathy, there is still a lot of controversy surrounding recommendations on age and dose at start of prophylactic regimens. The present database study was performed to investigate the role of primary versus secondary prophylaxis in HA children. The outcome variable was imaging-proven haemophilic joint damage. Forty-two children were initially treated with primary prophylaxis following the first bleeding episode, and were frequency-matched (year of birth, catchment area) to 67 pa- tients receiving “on-demand” therapy with an early switch to “secondary prophylaxis”. In multivariate analysis adjusted for the HA mutation type and the presence or absence of thrombophilia, the Pettersson score investigated at a median age of 12.5 years in joints with at least one documented bleeding episode was not significantly different between the two patient groups (p=0.944),and no statistically significant differences were found in patients with target joints (p=0.3), nor in children in whom synovitis had occurred (p=0.77). No conclusion can be drawn from the data presented herein whether primary prophylaxis or an early start of secondary prophylaxis is superior with respect to joint outcome in children with severe HA.

Keywords

Severe haemophilia A - on-demand - primary prophylaxis - joint damage

• References

• 1 Nilsson IM, Berntorp E, Löfqvist T. et al. Twentyfive years’ experience of prophylactic treatment in severe hemophilia A and B. J Intern Med 1992; 232: 25-32.
• 2 Astermark J, Petrini P, Tengborn L. et al. Primary prophylaxis in severe hemophilia should be started at an early age but can be individualized. Br J Haematol 1999; 105: 1109-1113.
• 3 Fischer K, van der Bom JG, Mauser-Bunschoten EP. et al. Changes in treatment strategies for severe haemophilia over the last 3 decades: effects on clotting factor consumption and arthropathy. Haemophilia 2001; 7: 446-452.
• 4 Ljung R. Paediatric care of the child with haemophilia. Haemophilia 2002; 8: 178-182.
• 5 Blanchette VS, Manco-Johnson M, Santagostino E. et al. Optimizing factor prophylaxis for the haemophilia population: where do we stand?. Haemophilia 2004; 10/4: 97-104.
• 6 Fischer K, van der Bom JG. Molho et al. Prophylactic versus on-demand treatment strategies for severe hemophilia: a comparison of costs and long-term outcome. Haemophilia 2002; 8: 745-752.
• 7 Carlsson KS, Höjgard S, Glomstein A. et al. On-demand vs. prophylactic treatment for severe haemophilia in Norway and Sweden: differences in treatment characteristics and outcome. Haemophilia 2003; 9: 555-566.
• 8 Kern M, Blanchette V, Stain AM. et al. Clinical and cost implications of target joints in Canadian boys with severe hemophilia. J Pediatr 2004; 145: 628-634.
• 9 Rahi JS, Manaras I, Tuomainen H. et al. Meeting the needs of parents around the time of diagnosis of disability among their children: evaluation of a novel program for information, support, and liaison by key workers. Pediatrics 2004; 114: e482.
• 10 Berntorp E, Astermark J, Björkman S. et al. Consensus perspectives on prophylactic therapy for haemophilia: summary statement. Haemophilia 2003; 9: 1-4.
• 11 Ota S, Mclimont M, Carcao MD. et al. Definitions for haemophilia prophylaxis and its outcomes: The Canadian Consensus Study. Haemophilia 2007; 13: 12-20.
• 12 Nuss R, Kilcoyne RF, Geraghty S. et al. MRI findings in haemophilic joints treated with radiosynoviorthesis with development of an MRI scale of joint damage. Haemophilia 2000; 6: 162-169.
• 13 Thomas DC, Greenland S. The relative efficiencies of matched and independent sample designs for casecontrol studies. J Chron Dis 1983; 36: 685-697.
• 14 Kreuz W, Escuriola Ettingshausen C. et al. Prevention of joint damage in hemophiliac children with early prophylaxis. Orthopäde 1999; 28: 341-346.
• 15 Kreuz W, Escuriola-Ettingshausen C, Funk M. et al. When should prophylactic treatment in patients with haemophilia A and B start? The German experience. Haemophilia 1998; 4: 413-417.
• 16 Mayer D. Essential evidence-based Medicine.. Cambridge University Press; : 2004: 58-60.
• 17 Pettersson H, Nilsson IM, Hedner U. et al. Radiologic evaluation of prophylaxis in severe haemophilia. Acta Paed Scand 1981; 70: 565-570.
• 18 Bogdanova N, Markoff A, Pollmann H. et al. Spectrum of molecular defects and mutation detection rate in patients with severe hemophilia A. Hum Mutat 2005; 26: 249-254.
• 19 Escuriola Ettingshausen C, Halimeh S, Kurnik K. et al. Hemophilia phenotype is dependent on the presence of prothrombotic risk factors. A multicenter cohort study. Thromb Haemost 2001; 85: 218-220.
• 20 Gouw SC, van der Bom JG, van den Berg HM. et al. Treatment related risk factors of inhibitor development in previously untreated patients with hemophilia A: the CANAL cohort study. Blood 2007; 109: 4648-4654.
• 21 Manco-Johnson MJ, Abshire TC, Shapiro AD. et al. Prophylaxis versus episodic treatment to prevent joint disease in boys with severe hemophilia. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 535-544.
• 22 Fischer K, Astermark J, van der Bom JG. et al. Prophylactic treatment for severe haemophilia: comparison of an intermediate-dose to a high-dose regimen. Haemophilia 2002; 8: 753-760.
• 23 Van den Berg HM, Fischer K, Mauser-Bunschoten EP. et al. Long-term outcome in individualized prophylactic treatment of children with severe haemophilia. Br J Haematol 2001; 112: 561-565.
• 24 Fischer K, van der Bom JG, Mauser-Bunschoten EP. et al. The effects of postponing prophylactic treatment on long-term outcome in patients with severe hemophilia. Blood 2002; 99: 2337-2341.