Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: research priorities for mucocutaneous bleeding disorders.

BACKGROUND: Excessive or abnormal mucocutaneous bleeding (MCB) may impact all aspects of the physical and psychosocial wellbeing of those who live with it (PWMCB). The evidence base for the optimal diagnosis and management of disorders such as inherited platelet disorders, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD), Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS), and von Willebrand disease (VWD) remains thin with enormous potential for targeted research. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: National Hemophilia Foundation and American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network initiated the development of a National Research Blueprint for Inherited Bleeding Disorders with extensive all-stakeholder consultations to identify the priorities of people with inherited bleeding disorders and those who care for them. They recruited multidisciplinary expert working groups (WG) to distill community-identified priorities into concrete research questions and score their feasibility, impact, and risk. RESULTS: WG2 detailed 38 high priority research questions concerning the biology of MCB, VWD, inherited qualitative platelet function defects, HDS/EDS, HHT, bleeding disorder of unknown cause, novel therapeutics, and aging. CONCLUSIONS: Improving our understanding of the basic biology of MCB, large cohort longitudinal natural history studies, collaboration, and creative approaches to novel therapeutics will be important in maximizing the benefit of future research for the entire MCB community.

More people experience mucocutaneous bleeding (MCB), affecting tissues like skin and gums, than have hemophilia A or B. MCB is not understood as well as hemophilia. Common types of MCB include nosebleeds, bleeding gums, heavy menstrual bleeding, and digestive tract bleeding. Mucocutaneous inherited bleeding disorders include inherited platelet disorders, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) and Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS), von Willebrand Disease (VWD), and others. Diagnosing and treating MCB is complicated and sometimes medical providers dismiss the bleeding that patients report when they cannot find a medical explanation for it. Many people with mucocutaneous bleeding (PWMCB) do not receive the care they need; for example, women with VWD live with symptoms for, on average, 16 years before they are diagnosed in the US. This struggle to obtain care has important negative impacts on patients' physical and psychological health and their quality-of-life. The National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), a large US bleeding disorders patient advocacy organization, set out to develop a National Research Blueprint for Inherited Bleeding Disorders focused on community priorities. They brought together a group of patients, providers, and researchers with MCB expertise to identify the research that would most improve the lives of PWMCB through targeted and accessible diagnostics and therapies. We report in this paper that research is needed to better understand the biology of MCB and to define the mechanisms of disease in these disorders. We also describe high priority research questions for each of the main disorders, novel therapeutics, and aging.

von Willebrand factor levels in the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is associated with significant morbidity as a result of excessive mucocutaneous bleeding. Early diagnosis and treatment are important to prevent and treat these symptoms. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of diagnostic tests using different cutoff values of von Willebrand factor antigen (VWF:Ag) and platelet-dependent von Willebrand factor (VWF) activity assays in the diagnosis of VWD. We searched Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for eligible studies. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and reported patient-important outcomes when relevant. This review included 21 studies that evaluated VWD diagnosis. The results showed low certainty in the evidence for a net health benefit from reconsidering the diagnosis of VWD vs removing the disease diagnosis in patients with VWF levels that have normalized with age. For the diagnosis of type 1 VWD, VWF sequence variants were detected in 75% to 82% of patients with VWF:Ag < 0.30 IU/mL and in 44% to 60% of patients with VWF:Ag between 0.30 and 0.50 IU/mL. A sensitivity of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.94) and a specificity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.76-0.97) were observed for a platelet-dependent VWF activity/VWF:Ag ratio < 0.7 in detecting type 2 VWD (moderate certainty in the test accuracy results). VWF:Ag and platelet-dependent activity are continuous variables that are associated with an increase in bleeding risk with decreasing levels. This systematic review shows that using a VWF activity/VWF:Ag ratio < 0.7 vs lower cutoff levels in patients with an abnormal initial VWD screen is more accurate for the diagnosis of type 2 VWD.

ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease.

BACKGROUND: von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder known in humans. Accurate and timely diagnosis presents numerous challenges. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about VWD diagnosis. METHODS: ASH, ISTH, NHF, and WFH established a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 4 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) supported the guideline-development process, including performing or updating systematic evidence reviews up to 8 January 2020. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subsequently subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 11 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Key recommendations of these guidelines include the role of bleeding-assessment tools in the assessment of patients suspected of VWD, diagnostic assays and laboratory cutoffs for type 1 and type 2 VWD, how to approach a type 1 VWD patient with normalized levels over time, and the role of genetic testing vs phenotypic assays for types 2B and 2N. Future critical research priorities are also identified.