- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT05606640
Gaining Insight Into the Complexity of Pain in Patients With Haemophilia
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
In this study, adult patients with moderate or severe Haemophilia from the Haemophilia Treatment Centers will be invited to participate in the study. Patients willing to participate will be asked to complete a battery of questionnaires in the week prior to the study. Patients will undergo a comprehensive baseline evaluation after their regular appointment with their treating hematologist.
During the baseline assessment, the structure of ankle and knee joints will be assessed, using respectively magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound evaluation. Besides, patients will be asked to perform some active movements to quantify the physical functions of the lower limb and will undergo an extensive pain assessment.
During one month following baseline assessment, patients will be closely monitored. They will be asked to fill in a diary linked to their usual logbook in which they indicate the minimal and maximal intensity of pain, location of pain, intake of regular or additional (in case of bleeding) clotting factors, intake of analgesics, occurrence and location of assumed bleeding. Patients will be asked to wear an activity tracker to register the number of steps during this month.The short version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) will be used to evaluate the self-reported estimation of weekly physical activity.
During the next 11 months, patients will be asked to fill in three online pain-related questionnaires: the Brief Pain Inventory, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire once a month.
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
- Name: Anthe Foubert
- Phone Number: 0032 3 265 97 18
- Email: anthe.foubert@uantwerpen.be
Study Locations
-
-
-
Brussel, Belgium, 120
- Recruiting
- Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc
-
-
Antwerp
-
Edegem, Antwerp, Belgium, 2650
- Recruiting
- University Hospital Antwerp
-
Contact:
- Anthe Foubert
- Email: anthe.foubert@uantwerpen.be
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Sampling Method
Study Population
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- adult (18-65y) patients with moderate (i.e. between 1 and 5 % normal Factor activity) or severe (less than 1% normal Factor activity) Haemophilia A (i.e. Factor VIII deficiency) or B (i.e. Factor IX deficiency)
- Dutch or French speaking
- Patients who provide their haemophilia treatment regimen to be stable (i.e. a regular treatment during the last 6 months, verified by the existing patients' logbook).
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients suffering from known neuropathies with definite medical causes independent from the haemophilia (e.g. diabetes polyneuropathy)
- Patients with a haemarthrosis in the month preceding study participation will be excluded as well. In case of doubt, ultrasound will be used to check the presence of bleed in the joint.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Observational Models: Cohort
- Time Perspectives: Prospective
Cohorts and Interventions
Group / Cohort |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Haemophilia
Adult males with severe or moderate haemophilia A or B
|
At baseline (T0) patients underwent the somatosensory pain assessment, joint structure and function assessment and filled in all questionnaires.
During one month after baseline (T1) patients wore an activity tracker and filled in the Illness Perceptions Questionnaire and the International Physical Activity questionnaire.
During one year after the baseline assessment (T2) patients filled in every month The Brief Pain Inventory, Illness Perceptions Questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5L quality of life questionnaire.
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Pain localisation
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The body chart of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was used to investigate painful body sites.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Pain localisation
Time Frame: At one year follow-up (T2)
|
The body chart of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was used to investigate painful body sites.
|
At one year follow-up (T2)
|
Pain severity
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The BPI was used to evaluate the individual's pain experience within the last 24 hours by four items, resulting in a total pain severity score.
Minimum score 0, maximum score 10.
The higher te score, the higher the pain severity.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Pain severity
Time Frame: At one year follow-up (T2)
|
The BPI was used to evaluate the individual's pain experience within the last 24 hours by four items, resulting in a total pain severity score.
Minimum score 0, maximum score 10.
The higher te score, the higher the pain severity.
|
At one year follow-up (T2)
|
Pain interference
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The BPI was used to evaluate how much pain interferes with patient's daily activities.
This was assessed by seven items, resulting in a total pain interference score.
Minimum score 0, maximum score 10.
The higher the score, the more pain interference.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Pain interference
Time Frame: At one year follow-up (T2)
|
The BPI was used to evaluate how much pain interferes with patient's daily activities.
This was assessed by seven items, resulting in a total pain interference score.
Minimum score 0, maximum score 10.
The higher the score, the more pain interference.
|
At one year follow-up (T2)
|
Signs of neuropathic pain
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4) was applied as a screening tool for the presence of a neuropathic pain component.
Minimum score 0, maximum score 10, a score of ≥4/10 was used as a cut-off.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Signs of central sensitization
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI) part A was used to identify signs of central sensitization (CS) i.e. increased sensitivity of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system.The presence of 25 pain-related psychological, cognitive and functional signs are scored from 0 (never) to 4 (always).
A total score exceeding ≥40/100 indicated central sensitization.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Pain Catastrophizing
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) asked participants to reflect on previous painful experiences and to rate their degree of catastrophic thinking in the content domains of rumination, magnification and helplessness.
A score of 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time) was indicated for each of the 13 items, resulting in a total score range of 0-52.
Higher scores were associated with higher levels of pain catastrophizing.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Anxiety and Depression
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to establish symptoms of anxiety and depression.
This 14-item questionnaire consists of two subscales each including 7 items, the first to identify anxiety and the second depression.
Individual items were scored from 0 to 3, resulting in a total range score of 0-21 for each subscale.
A score of ≥8/21 was determined as a cut-off, indicating anxiety and depression.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Fear Avoidance and Beliefs
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The fear avoidance and beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) will be used to assess fear avoidance behaviors.
The first five items question physical activity, the other 11 activities work.
A minimum score is 0, maximum 24.
Higher scores indicate fear avoidance behaviors.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Life quality
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The EQ-5D-5L was used to assess quality of life.
From five items investigating the impact of their disease, a health utility score was calculated.
Additionally, the questionnaire consists of a visual analogue scale (VAS) labelled from 0: "worst imaginable health state," to 100 "best imaginable health state" providing the EQ-VAS.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Life quality
Time Frame: At one year follow-up (T2)
|
The EQ-5D-5L was used to assess quality of life.
From five items investigating the impact of their disease, a health utility score was calculated.
Additionally, the questionnaire consists of a visual analogue scale (VAS) labelled from 0: "worst imaginable health state," to 100 "best imaginable health state" providing the EQ-VAS.
|
At one year follow-up (T2)
|
Haemophilia Activity Limitations
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The Haemophilia Activity List (HAL) was used to assess activity limitations and participation restrictions people with haemophilia suffer with.
A sum score and component scores can be calculated, resulting in scores ranging from 0-100.
Lower scores represent higher levels of participation restrictions.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Physical endurance ability
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The 2 minutes walking test (2MWT) was used as a performance-based test to assess their functional activity.
Subjects were asked to walk as far as possible for two minutes in a 30 meters flat corridor, resulting in the walking distance in meters.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Physical functioning
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The Timed Up & Go (TUG) consists of asking the patient to sit on a standard armchair; stand up and walk 3 meters; turn around at the line and walk back to the chair and sit down at a normal pace.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Joint structure US
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Ultrasound (US) examinations will be performed with a linear probe (3-13 MHz) Esaote, type MyLab Gamma, Genova, Italy).The Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) scanning procedure and scoring method will be performed by one of our investigators.
A score of 0/8 (normal bone 0/2, normal cartilage 0/4, absent hypertrophic synovium 0/2) is considered normal.
A score above 1/8 is considered as abnormal.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Joint structure MRI
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Magnetic Reasoning Imaging (MRI) of the ankles will be performed with a 3T-magnet (GE Signa Premier, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, USA).Joint images will be classified with the international Prophylaxis Study Group (IPSG) scale.
Joints will be classified as abnormal if talocrural joints or subtalar joints were positive at IPSG-score.
Joints will be considered healthy if the total score was of 1/17.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Illness perceptions
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The illness perceptions questionnaire (B-IPQ) includes nine items ranging from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) and questions the perceptions related to the patients disease.
No total score exists, as each item is scored individually.
Higher scores indicate more negative or unhelpful illness perceptions.
A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Illness perceptions
Time Frame: At one year follow-up (T2)
|
The illness perceptions questionnaire (B-IPQ) includes nine items ranging from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) and questions the perceptions related to the patients disease.
No total score exists, as each item is scored individually.
Higher scores indicate more negative or unhelpful illness perceptions.
A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
At one year follow-up (T2)
|
Physical activity
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
The International Physical Activity Scale (IPAQ) questions the hours of physical activity over the last week.
Based on the patient's answers a MET-minute score is calculated (MET-minutes x weight in kilograms/60kilograms)
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Physical activity
Time Frame: At one month follow-up (T1)
|
The International Physical Activity Scale (IPAQ) questions the hours of physical activity over the last week.
Based on the patient's answers a MET-minute score is calculated (MET-minutes x weight in kilograms/60kilograms)
|
At one month follow-up (T1)
|
Joint function
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Joint function of the ankles, knees and ankles was assessed with the HJHS 2.1.
Minimum score is 0, maximum, 20.
The higher the score the more functional limitations.
HJHS scores are considered positive when scores reach 1/20.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Warm and cold detection threshold
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Thermal hyper or hypo esthesia were assessed with a thermode attached at the dominant wrist by use of a validated Quantitative Sensory testing protocol with the Medoc TSA-2 device.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Warm and cold pain thresholds
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Thermal hyper or hypo algesia were assessed with a thermode attached at the dominant wrist by use of a validated Quantitative Sensory testing protocol with the Medoc TSA-2 device.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Mechanical pain thresholds
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Mechanical local and widespread hyperalgesia indicated by lower pressure pain thresholds were assessed with a digital algometer at the knee joints, ankle joints and forehead.
This by use of a validated quantitative sensory testing protocol.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Temporal summation of pain
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Temporal summation (or bottom-up sensitization) of pain was assessed by use of a 60g Von Frey monofilament at the medial knee and dorsal side of the wrist of the dominant side.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Conditioned Pain Modulation
Time Frame: At baseline (T0)
|
Dysfunctional endogenous pain inhibition (as form of central pain processing) was assessed by a validated protocol applying the Medoc TSA-2 device with thermodes attached at both wrists.
|
At baseline (T0)
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Pain interference change
Time Frame: Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
The BPI was used to evaluate how much pain interferes with patient's daily activities.
This was assessed by seven items, resulting in a total pain interference score.
Minimum score 0, maximum score 10.
The higher the score, the more pain interference.A change score between baseline and one year follow-up will be calculated.
|
Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
Pain severity change
Time Frame: Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
The BPI was used to evaluate the individual's pain experience within the last 24 hours by four items, resulting in a total pain severity score.
Minimum score 0, maximum score 10.
The higher te score, the higher the pain severity.A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
Fear Avoidance and beliefs change
Time Frame: Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
The fear avoidance and beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) will be used to assess fear avoidance behaviors.
The first five items question physical activity, the other 11 activities work.
A minimum score is 0, maximum 24.
Higher scores indicate fear avoidance behaviors.
A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
Anxiety and Depression change
Time Frame: Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to establish symptoms of anxiety and depression.
This 14-item questionnaire consists of two subscales each including 7 items, the first to identify anxiety and the second depression.
Individual items were scored from 0 to 3, resulting in a total range score of 0-21 for each subscale.
A score of ≥8/21 was determined as a cut-off, indicating anxiety and depression.A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
Illness Perceptions change
Time Frame: Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
The illness perceptions questionnaire (B-IPQ) includes nine items ranging from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) and questions the perceptions related to the patients disease.
No total score exists, as each item is scored individually.
Higher scores indicate more negative or unhelpful illness perceptions.
A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
Pain Catastrophizing change
Time Frame: Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) asked participants to reflect on previous painful experiences and to rate their degree of catastrophic thinking in the content domains of rumination, magnification and helplessness.
A score of 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time) was indicated for each of the 13 items, resulting in a total score range of 0-52.
Higher scores were associated with higher levels of pain catastrophizing.
A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
Pain localisation change
Time Frame: Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
The body chart of the Brief Pain Inventory was used to investigate painful body sites.
A change score between baseline (T0) and one year follow-up (T2) will be calculated.
|
Change from baseline (T0) to one year follow-up (T2)
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Nathalie Roussel, Universiteit Antwerpen
- Principal Investigator: Cedric Hermans, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc / UCLouvain
- Principal Investigator: Catherine Lambert, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc / UCLouvain
- Principal Investigator: Sébastien Lobet, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc / UCLouvain
- Principal Investigator: Philip Maes, University Hospital, Antwerp
- Principal Investigator: Anthe Foubert, University of Antwerp - UCLouvain
- Principal Investigator: Valérie-Anne Chantrain, University of Antwerp - UCLouvain
- Principal Investigator: Mira Meeus, Universiteit Antwerpen
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- PAINSTUDY_2019
- 2019/28OCT/469 (Other Identifier: CEHF)
- B300201942304 (Other Identifier: Belgian registration number)
- 19/43/483 (Other Identifier: University Hospital Antwerp)
- EDGE000540 (Other Identifier: University Hospital Antwerp)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Hemophilia A
-
Christoph KönigsRoche Pharma AG; Chugai Pharma Germany GmbHRecruitingSevere Hemophilia A | Severe Hemophilia A With Inhibitor | Severe Hemophilia A Without InhibitorGermany
-
GWT-TUD GmbHHannover Medical School; Hoffmann-La RocheCompleted
-
Kathelijn FischerRadboud University Medical Center; University Medical Center Groningen; Maastricht... and other collaboratorsRecruitingAdolescent | Child | Hemophilia A With Inhibitor | Adult | Hemophilia A Without Inhibitor | Hemophilia A, SevereNetherlands
-
Hoffmann-La RocheActive, not recruitingSevere Hemophilia A | Moderate Hemophilia ABrazil, Germany, Italy, Spain, United States, Turkey, United Kingdom, Tunisia, Canada, Hungary, Morocco, Serbia
-
Catalyst BiosciencesCompletedHemophilia A | Hemophilia B | Hemophilia A With Inhibitor | Hemophilia B With Inhibitor | Hemophilia A Without Inhibitor | Hemophilia B Without InhibitorBulgaria, Russian Federation
-
JW PharmaceuticalRecruitingHemophilia A With Inhibitor | Hemophilia A Without InhibitorKorea, Republic of
-
PfizerCompletedFactor VIII Deficiency, Congenital | Hemophilia A, Congenital | Factor 8 Deficiency, Congenital | Autosomal Hemophilia A | Classic Hemophilia
-
BioMarin PharmaceuticalRecruitingHemophilia A With Inhibitor | Hemophilia A With Anti Factor VIIIUnited States, United Kingdom, Taiwan, Korea, Republic of, Brazil, Italy
-
American Thrombosis and Hemostasis NetworkTakeda; CSL Behring; OctapharmaCompletedHemophilia A | Hemophilia B | Hemophilia | Hemophilia A With Inhibitor | Haemophilia | Hemophilia B With Inhibitor | Haemophilia A Without Inhibitor | Haemophilia B Without InhibitorUnited States
-
BayerCompletedHemophilia A; Hemophilia BIsrael
Clinical Trials on Biopsychological pain assessment
-
Oslo University HospitalCompletedAdolescent Chronic Fatigue SyndromeNorway
-
Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne...RecruitingCirrhosis | Pain, Acute | Hepatic Fibrosis | Pain, Chronic | Pain, NeuropathicFrance
-
British University In EgyptCompleted
-
KK Women's and Children's HospitalDuke UniversityActive, not recruitingBreast Cancer | Chronic Pain | Acute Pain | Depression, AnxietyUnited States, Singapore
-
Oslo Metropolitan UniversityCompletedQuality of Life | Pain | DementiaNorway
-
Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterCompleted
-
Catherine FerlandCompletedCerebral Palsy | Adolescent Idiopathic ScoliosisCanada
-
Centre Hospitalier Régional d'OrléansCompleted
-
Cairo UniversityCompletedPostoperative PainEgypt
-
Moens MaartenUnknown