Long-term joint outcomes in adolescents with moderate or severe haemophilia A

David E Schmidt, Aikaterini Michalopoulou, Kathelijn Fischer, Jayashree Motwani, Nadine G Andersson, Helen Pergantou, Susanna Ranta, PedNet Study Group, David E Schmidt, Aikaterini Michalopoulou, Kathelijn Fischer, Jayashree Motwani, Nadine G Andersson, Helen Pergantou, Susanna Ranta, PedNet Study Group

Abstract

Introduction: Favourable joint outcomes are expected with modern haemophilia A (HA) management. Evaluation of long-term treatment outcomes is hampered by the delay between bleeding episodes during childhood and resulting joint outcomes in adulthood.

Aim: To measure the long-term joint health of adolescents with moderate and severe HA, according to severity and inhibitor status.

Methods: Pilot cross-sectional study of five European PedNet centres in moderate and severe HA patients aged 10-19 years. Structured assessment of joint status by physical examination (HJHS) and ultrasound (HEAD-US).

Results: In total, 141 HA patients were evaluable, 100 without inhibitors (81 severe, 19 moderate HA), and 41 severe HA with current/past inhibitors. On physical examination, 12/81 (15%) of severe HA without inhibitors, 3/19 (16%) of moderate HA, and 13/41 (32%) of severe HA patients with inhibitors exhibited joint abnormalities. Inhibitor persistence, longer inhibitor duration, and a high peak inhibitor level were associated with impaired joint health. Ultrasound showed joint damage (bone or cartilage) in 13/49 (27%) of severe HA without inhibitors, 1/12 (8%) of moderate HA, and 10/28 (36%) of severe HA patients with inhibitors. A discordant ankle evaluation by ultrasound versus physical examination was present in 53/169 joints (31%).

Conclusions: Most adolescents with severe or moderate HA show favourable joint health. Future research with combined ultrasound and/or MRI is needed to better understand joint outcomes in the remaining patients. Patents with inhibitors showed a two-fold increased proportion with joint deterioration. Ultrasound paired with physical examination increases sensitivity for detection of joint damage.

Keywords: adolescent; arthropathy; haemophilia A; paediatrics; ultrasonography.

Conflict of interest statement

Susanna Ranta is an investigator in clinical trials sponsored by SOBI, Roche, Novo Nordisk, received grants for research from the Childhood Cancer Foundation and Stockholm County Council, and participated in Steering Committee for Roche. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

© 2022 The Authors. Haemophilia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Study flow chart. HA, haemophilia A; HJHS, Haemophilia Joint Health Score; US, ultrasound
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Functional joint health and gait in adolescents with haemophilia A, using structured outcome assessment. (A) Physical examination of joint health between severe and moderate haemophilia A without inhibitors. Red diamonds indicate patients with no prophylaxis or unknown status. (B) Comparison of joint health of patients with severe haemophilia A by inhibitor status. HA, haemophilia A; HJHS, Haemophilia Joint Health Score; Inh, inhibitor; m, months
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Determinants of joint health in adolescents with severe haemophilia A. (A) Age at the evaluation was not associated with the joint health and gait (severe haemophilia A without inhibitors). Older children showed no worse joint function than younger children. (B) Duration of a FVIII inhibitor presence and cumulative HJHS score (severe haemophilia A with inhibitors). C, Current; HA, haemophilia A; HJHS, Haemophilia Joint Health Score; BU, Bethesda units; rho, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Ultrasound to identify early signs of joint arthropathy, and synergistic use together with physical examination. (A) Comparison of ultrasound evaluation between moderate and severe haemophilia A without inhibitors. Red diamonds indicate patients with no prophylaxis or unknown status. (B) Comparison of ultrasound joint health between patients with severe haemophilia A and inhibitors, by inhibitor status. (C) Correlation between HEAD‐US and HJHS scores. Correlation is given for the Spearman rank coefficient rho. HA, haemophilia A; HEAD‐US, Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection by Ultrasound score

References

    1. 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(6):535‐544.
    1. den Uijl IEM, Fischer K, Van Der Bom JG, Grobbee DE, Rosendaal FR, Plug I. Clinical outcome of moderate haemophilia compared with severe and mild haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2009;15(1):83‐90.
    1. den Uijl I, Biesma D, Grobbee D, Fischer K. Outcome in moderate haemophilia. Blood Transfus Trasfus Sangue. 2014;12(1):s330‐336.
    1. Måseide RJ, Berntorp E, Astermark J, et al. Joint health and treatment modalities in Nordic patients with moderate haemophilia A and B ‐ The MoHem study. Haemophilia. 2020;26(5):891‐897.
    1. Astermark J, Petrini P, Tengborn L, Schulman S, Ljung R, Berntorp E. Primary prophylaxis in severe haemophilia should be started at an early age but can be individualized. Br J Haematol. 1999;105(4):1109‐1113.
    1. 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(7):2337‐2341.
    1. Groen W, van der Net J, Bos K, et al. Joint health and functional ability in children with haemophilia who receive intensive replacement therapy. Haemophilia. 2011;17(5):783‐790.
    1. Fischer K, Ljung R, Platokouki H, et al. Prospective observational cohort studies for studying rare diseases: the European PedNet Haemophilia Registry. Haemophilia. 2014;20(4):e280‐286.
    1. Feldman BM, Funk S, Lundin B, et al. Musculoskeletal measurement tools from the International Prophylaxis Study Group (IPSG). Haemophilia. 2008;14(3):162‐169.
    1. Feldman BM, Funk SM, Bergstrom B‐M, et al. Validation of a new pediatric joint scoring system from the International Hemophilia Prophylaxis Study Group: validity of the hemophilia joint health score. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(2):223‐230.
    1. Fischer K, de Kleijn P. Using the Haemophilia Joint Health Score for assessment of teenagers and young adults: exploring reliability and validity. Haemophilia. 2013;19(6):944‐950.
    1. Sluiter D, Foppen W, de Kleijn P, Fischer K. Haemophilia Joint Health Score in healthy adults playing sports. Haemophilia. 2014;20(2):282‐286.
    1. Martinoli C, Della Casa Alberighi O, Di Minno G, et al. Development and definition of a simplified scanning procedure and scoring method for Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD‐US). Thromb Haemost. 2013;109(6):1170‐1179.
    1. Fischer K, Poonnoose P, Dunn AL, et al. Choosing outcome assessment tools in haemophilia care and research: a multidisciplinary perspective. Haemophilia. 2017;23(1):11‐24.
    1. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than ‘exact’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat. 1998;52(2):119.
    1. Altisent C, Martorell M, Crespo A, Casas L, Torrents C, Parra R. Early prophylaxis in children with severe haemophilia A: clinical and ultrasound imaging outcomes. Haemophilia. 2016;22(2):218‐224.
    1. Nijdam A, Foppen W, van der Schouw YT, Mause‐Bunschoten EP, Schutgens REG, Fischer K. Long‐term effects of joint bleeding before starting prophylaxis in severe haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2016;22(6):852‐858.
    1. Bladen M, Main E, Hubert N, Koutoumanou E, Liesner R, Khair K. Factors affecting the Haemophilia Joint Health Score in children with severe haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2013;19(4):626‐631.
    1. Scott MJ, Xiang H, Hart DP, et al. Treatment regimens and outcomes in severe and moderate haemophilia A in the UK: the THUNDER study. Haemophilia. 2019;25(2):205‐212.
    1. Foppen W, van der Schaaf IC, Fischer K. Value of routine ultrasound in detecting early joint changes in children with haemophilia using the ‘Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with UltraSound’ protocol. Haemophilia. 2016;22(1):121‐125.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj