Episodic replacement of clotting factor concentrates does not prevent bleeding or musculoskeletal damage - the MUSFIH study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A longitudinal study was carried out in 255 children from 10 centres in nine developing countries over 5 years to assess the musculoskeletal outcome of children on episodic factor replacement. Outcome was documented by assessment of the annual joint bleeding rate (AJBR), WFH clinical and Pettersson radiological joint scores as well as the FISH score for activities. Of the 203 patients for whom data was available at the end of 5 years, 164 who had received only episodic treatment are included in this report. RESULTS: The median age at the beginning of the study was 10 years (IQR 7-12). The median clotting factor concentrate (CFC) usage was 662 IU kg-1 year-1 (IQ range: 280-1437). The median AJBR was 10 (IQ range: 5-17). The median AJBR was higher in the older children with the median being 5 for the 5 year old child, while it was 9 for the 10 year old and 11 for children older than 15. Given the episodic nature of the replacement therapy, those with a higher AJBR used significantly greater annual CFC doses (P < 0.001); The median change in WFH clinical score and Pettersson radiological score over the 5 years was 0.4/year for each, while the FISH deteriorated at a rate of 0.2/year with poor correlation of these changes with CFC dose. WFH and FISH scores were significantly worse in those with an AJBR of >3 per year (P = 0.001). The change in the Pettersson score was significantly more in those with an AJBR of >5 per year (P = 0.020). Significant changes in FISH scores were only noted after 10 years of age. CONCLUSION: Episodic CFC replacement over a large range of doses does not alter the natural course of bleeding in haemophilia or the musculoskeletal deterioration and should not be recommended as a long term option for treatment. Prophylaxis is the only way to preserve musculoskeletal function in haemophilia.

Prophylaxis is the new standard of care in patients with haemophilia.

Randomised controlled clinical trial evidence on prophylaxis as optimal care for patients with haemophilia was generated more than a decade ago. However, this knowledge has not translated into clinical practice in South Africa (SA) owing to many barriers to prophylaxis. These include the high treatment burden imposed by prophylaxis (frequent injections two to four times a week), the need for intravenous access to administer replacement clotting factor therapies, and the higher volume of clotting factor required compared with episodic treatment. The recently introduced non-factor therapies in haemophilia care have addressed many of these barriers. For example, emicizumab, which is currently the only globally approved non-factor therapy, can be administered subcutaneously less frequently (weekly, fortnightly or every 4 weeks) and has led to global adoption of prophylaxis as the standard of care in haemophilia by the bleeding disorders community. Haemophilia A is the most prevalent clotting factor deficiency in SA, with >2 000 people diagnosed to date. However, only a few of these patients are currently on prophylaxis. In this 'In Practice' article, we review the rationale for prophylaxis, outline its goals and benefits, and provide evidence-based guidance on which haemophilia patients should be prioritised for emicizumab prophylaxis. This consensus guidance facilitates the adoption of prophylaxis as a national policy and the new standard of care in haemophilia in SA.

Home therapy for inherited bleeding disorders in South Africa: Results of a modified Delphi consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Optimal care of patients with inherited bleeding disorders requires that bleeding episodes are treated early, or still better prevented, through extension of patient care beyond hospital-based treatment to home-based therapy. In South Africa (SA), adoption of home therapy is variable, in part owing to lack of consensus among healthcare providers on what constitutes home therapy, which patients should be candidates for it, how it should be monitored, and what the barriers to home therapy are. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a modified Delphi process in order to establish consensus on home therapy among haemophilia healthcare providers in SA. METHODS: Treaters experienced in haemophilia care were invited to participate in a consensus-seeking process conducted in three rounds. In round 1, provisional statements around home therapy were formulated as questions and collated in a structured list. In rounds 2 and 3, evolving versions of the questionnaire were administered to participants. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement among the participants. RESULTS: The panel composition included an equal number of physicians and non-physicians. The participation rate was 100% through all three consensus rounds. The group reached consensus for 92% of the statements. Consensus of 100% was reached on starting home therapy in paediatric patients, requiring all patients on home therapy to sign informed consent and indemnity, and providing round-the-clock support for patients on home therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The home therapy consensus statements in this report have the potential to translate to policy on home therapy and to guide the initiation, practice and evaluation of home therapy programmes in SA.