The first Team Haemophilia Education meeting, 2015, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Haemophilia remains a complex disorder to diagnose and manage, requiring close cooperation between multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. There are still many unmet challenges in haemophilia care. The first Team Haemophilia Education (THE) meeting, held on 7-8 May 2015 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, aimed to promote the optimal care of haemophilia patients through education of the multidisciplinary treatment team. This was achieved by reviewing the latest developments in haemophilia management, considering how these can be implemented in the clinic to improve patient care and providing a platform for networking and debate for all haemophilia treatment team members. Haemophilia treatment centres from several countries were asked to complete a premeeting online questionnaire to establish the biggest challenges that they face when managing patients. The concerns expressed were used to develop the agenda, which comprised a combination of formal presentations, case studies and informal workshops covering such topics as pharmacokinetics, laboratory assays and tailoring of treatment to individual patients. This report is a summary of the key developments in haemophilia care presented by various investigators and healthcare professionals at THE meeting 2015.

Assessment of Hemophilic Arthropathy by Ultrasound: Where Do We Stand?

Joint hemorrhages represent the most common type of bleeding episode in persons with hemophilia, and recurrent hemarthrosis triggers chronic arthropathy, which is the most frequent chronic complication in these patients. In recent years, in the frame of a comprehensive care approach, a growing attention has been given to the periodic assessment of the joint status in hemophilia patients with the aim to identify early arthropathic changes and to prevent the development of a clinically overt arthropathy. Besides clinical examination, X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are currently used to evaluate joint status and to monitor the disease progression in hemophilia. Considering the limitations of X-ray and MRI, growing interest has been given to ultrasound (US) as a possible tool to assess joint status and identify early arthropathic changes in hemophilia patients. In the present review, we summarize major literature evidence on the use of joint US for the evaluation of markers of disease activity (joint effusion and synovial hypertrophy) and of degenerative damages (osteochondral changes) in patients with hemophilia. On the whole, being able to identify the presence of intra- or extra-articular fluid, US examination is the fastest and most reliable technique to identify acute conditions, such as hemarthrosis. In addition, the information on joint involvement provided by US in the patient follow-up may influence treatment decisions on a personalized basis. The use of US as part of a routine clinical examination by hemophilia experts may optimize the diagnostic workflow, avoiding additional costs and long waiting lists for patients referred to imaging departments. In the frame of a comprehensive care approach, US might represent a strategy to early detect and monitor synovial hypertrophy and osteochondral changes in hemophilia, thus extending the clinical examination and helping identify joints to be studied with a second-level examination such as MRI.

Benefits of prophylaxis versus on-demand treatment in adolescents and adults with severe haemophilia A: the POTTER study.

Rigorous evidence is lacking on long-term outcomes of factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis initiated in adolescent or adult patients with severe haemophilia A. The prospective, open-label Prophylaxis versus On-demand Therapy Through Economic Report (POTTER) study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01159587) compared long-term late secondary prophylaxis (recombinant FVIII-FS 20-30 IU/kg thrice weekly) with on-demand treatment in patients aged 12 to 55 years with severe haemophilia A. The annual number of joint bleeding episodes (primary endpoint), total bleeding episodes, orthopaedic and radiologic (Pettersson) scores, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pharmacoeconomic impact, and safety were evaluated over a > 5-year period (2004-2010). Fifty-eight patients were enrolled at 11 centres in Italy; 53 (27 prophylaxis, 26 on demand) were evaluated and stratified into 2 age subgroups (12-25 and 26-55 years). Patients receiving prophylaxis experienced a significantly lower number of joint bleeding episodes vs the on-demand group (annualised bleeding rate, 1.97 vs 16.80 and 2.46 vs 16.71 in younger and older patients, respectively; p=0.0043). Results were similar for total bleeding episodes. Prophylaxis was associated with significantly fewer target joints (p< 0.001), better orthopaedic (p=0.0019) and Pettersson (p=0.0177) scores, better HRQoL, and fewer days of everyday activities lost (p< 0.0001) but required significantly higher FVIII product consumption. The POTTER study is the first prospective, controlled trial documenting long-term benefits of late secondary prophylaxis in adolescents and adults with severe haemophilia A. The benefits of reduced bleeding frequency, improved joint status, and HRQoL may offset the higher FVIII consumption and costs.

Secondary prophylaxis in adolescent and adult haemophiliacs.

Progressive arthropathy of large joints of the limbs (knees, ankles, elbows), resulting from recurrent joint bleeds and subsequent long-term degenerative phenomena, is one of the main causes of morbidity and of deterioration of quality of life in adult severe hemophiliacs. While primary prophylaxis (i.e. the regular continuous long-term infusion of factor concentrates started before the age of two years and/or after no more than one joint bleed) is nowadays considered the gold standard for preserving joint function in patients with severe haemophilia, the benefits of secondary prophylaxis (i.e., all the long-term regular treatments not fulfilling the criteria of primary prophylaxis) are still controversial. In this review we present the literature data on secondary prophylaxis, focusing on adolescent and adults haemophiliacs along with clinical experience in Italy. On the whole, the more recently published studies suggest the effectiveness of early and delayed secondary prophylaxis. However, a number of questions are still unanswered, including the optimal dose, dosing interval and duration of secondary prophylaxis. Only large, prospective, long-term, possibly randomized studies will help to definitively assess the clinical impact of this strategy in adolescent and adult hemophiliacs.