ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To study the effect of low- and intermediate-dose factor VIII (FVIII) for prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A in children by comprehensively evaluating the outcomes of the joints.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Forty-seven children with severe hemophilia A (FVIII activity ≤2%) were enrolled in this study. Eighteen of the children received prophylactic treatment with low-dose FVIII (10 U/kg, 2-3 times a week), 20 received prophylactic treatment with intermediate-dose FVIII (15-30 U/kg, 3 times a week), and 9 received on-demand treatment with FVIII infusion when bleeding occurred according to the Chinese Expert Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hemophilia. The children were followed up for 180 days to observe the changes in the indexes of clinical bleeding phenotype, joint structure, joint function, and joint mobility, and the correlation of these indexes were analyzed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Compared with on-demand treatment, prophylactic treatment with low- and intermediate-dose FVIII significantly improved the clinical hemorrhage phenotype (P<0.01), and the improvement was significantly more conspicuous with intermediate-dose prophylactic treatment (P<0.05). Comprehensive evaluation of the joint structure and function changes showed that compared with on-demand treatment, prophylactic treatment with low- and intermediate-dose FVIII resulted in significant improvements in the total score of Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS), Functional Independence Score in Hemophilia (FISH), the single most severe target joint ultrasound and HJHS score of the target joint (P<0.05) and prophylactic treatment with intermediate-dose FVIII appeared to produce better outcomes of the joint than low-dose FVIII. No correlation was found between annual target joint bleeding rate (ATJBR) and ultrasound score, between ATJBR and HJHS change, or between annual joint bleeding rate (AJBR) and the total score of FISH (P>0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Compared with on-demand treatment, prophylactic treatment with low- and intermediate-dose FVIII can significantly improve the bleeding phenotype and delay the progression of joint injury, but the clinical hemorrhagic phenotype is not sufficient to monitor the disease progression.</p>
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To investigate the characteristics of breakthrough bleeding in adult patients with severe hemophilia A (SHA) receiving low- and intermediate-dose FVIII for tertiary prophylaxis and explore the factors affecting the outcomes of the treatment.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Forty-nine patients (mean age 31.53∓7.33 years) with SHA receiving tertiary prophylaxis FVIII treatment were divided into low-dose group (n=15) and intermediate-dose group (n=34). The data including clinical bleeding phenotype (Pre?AJBR), 72 h FVIII trough activity, and Functional Independence Score in Hemophilia (FISH) were recorded in all the patients, and Hemophilia Steward APP was used to record the bleeding episode and the treatment data. All the patients were followed up for at least 6 months.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In the low-dose and intermediate-dose groups, the number of joint bleeding (AJBR) episodes were 18.79∓13.03 and 9.28∓7.02 per year (P=0.016), and the proportions of spontaneous bleeding were 75.0% and 47.7%, respectively. The proportions of patients with target joint were 80% and 44%, target joint bleeding occurred in 59% and 41%, and cataract bleeding after 0-12 h of prophylactic injection occurred in 4.86% and 5.18% of the patients with a median breakthrough bleeding time of 40.08 h and 46.08 h (P=0.008), respectively. The proportions of patients with 72 h FVIII trough activity <1% were 44.4% and 34.8% in the two groups, respectively. AJBR was negatively correlated with the preventive dose consumed (r=-0.57, P=0.000, n=49) and FISH, but positively correlated with Pre-AJBR in the two groups (P<0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Tertiary prophylaxis with low- and intermediate-dose FVIII is not sufficient to achieve the goal of preventing progression of joint disease in Chinese adult patients with SHA. Although the prophylactic dose is the most important factor to affect the treatment efficacy, other non-factor approaches may also help to improve the efficacy of the treatment.</p>