Principles of care for acquired hemophilia.

OBJECTIVE: To establish clear priorities for the care of patients with acquired hemophilia A (AHA) by proposing 10 key principles of practical, holistic AHA management. METHOD: These principles were developed by the Zürich Haemophilia Forum, an expert panel of European hemophilia specialists comprising physicians and nursing and laboratory specialists. RESULTS: The 10 proposed principles for AHA care are as follows: (a) Improving initial diagnosis of AHA; (b) Differential diagnosis of AHA: laboratory assessment of patients with unusual bleeding; (c) Effective communication between laboratories, physicians, and specialists; (d) Improving clinical care: networking between healthcare professionals in the treating hospital and specialist hemophilia centers; (e) Comprehensive assessment of bleeding; (f) Appropriate use of bypassing agents; (g) Long-term follow-up and monitoring for efficacy and safety of immunosuppressive treatment; (h) Inpatient/outpatient settings; (i) Access to innovative and disruptive treatments; (j) Promotion of international collaborative research. CONCLUSION: The proposed principles for holistic AHA care aim to ensure swift diagnosis and optimal patient management. Key to achieving this goal is training for healthcare personnel in non-specialist hospitals and collaboration between different specialists. We hope these principles will increase awareness of AHA in the wider medical community and catalyze efforts toward improving its practical, multidisciplinary management.

Pain and pain management in haemophilia.

Joint pain is common in haemophilia and may be acute or chronic. Effective pain management in haemophilia is essential to reduce the burden that pain imposes on patients. However, the choice of appropriate pain-relieving measures is challenging, as there is a complex interplay of factors affecting pain perception. This can manifest as differences in patients' experiences and response to pain, which require an individualized approach to pain management. Prophylaxis with factor replacement reduces the likelihood of bleeds and bleed-related pain, whereas on-demand therapy ensures rapid bleed resolution and pain relief. Although use of replacement or bypassing therapy is often the first intervention for pain, additional pain relief strategies may be required. There is an array of analgesic options, but consideration should be paid to the adverse effects of each class. Nevertheless, a combination of medications that act at different points in the pain pathway may be beneficial. Nonpharmacological measures may also help patients and include active coping strategies; rest, ice, compression, and elevation; complementary therapies; and physiotherapy. Joint aspiration may also reduce acute joint pain, and joint steroid injections may alleviate chronic pain. In the longer term, increasing use of prophylaxis or performing surgery may be necessary to reduce the burden of pain caused by the degenerative effects of repeated bleeds. Whichever treatment option is chosen, it is important to monitor pain and adjust patient management accordingly. Beyond specific pain management approaches, ongoing collaboration between multidisciplinary teams, which should include physiotherapists and pain specialists, may improve outcomes for patients.

Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee and hip replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This was an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of oral dabigatran etexilate compared with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR) surgery from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: Dabigatran etexilate (220 mg once daily) was compared with enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) in patients undergoing TKR (duration of prophylaxis, 6-10 days) and THR (duration of prophylaxis, 28-35 days). The 10-week acute postsurgical phase was modeled using a decision tree. A Markov process (1-year cycle length) was used to model long-term events (recurrent VTE, postthrombotic syndrome, and consequences of intracranial hemorrhage) for patients' remaining lifetimes. Relative risks for VTE and bleeding events were derived from 2 Phase III studies that compared dabigatran etexilate with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. The probabilities of long-term events were estimated using data from published longitudinal studies. RESULTS: Rates of VTE and bleeding events did not differ significantly between dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin. Dabigatran etexilate was less costly than enoxaparin in TKR and substantially less costly in THR, primarily due to differences in administration costs. The cost of prophylaxis for THR patients, including drugs and administration costs, was estimated at pound 137 for dabigatran etexilate and pound 237 for enoxaparin ( pound 7 for nursing time during the hospital stay, pound 91 for nurse home visits for administration after hospital discharge, and an additional pound 2 in drug costs). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of pound 20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probability of cost-effectiveness for dabigatran etexilate was 75% in TKR and 97% in THR. These results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the UK National Health Service, thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate was cost-saving compared with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily, with comparable efficacy and safety profiles.