Haemophilia最新文献

Introduction

The haemophilia joint health score (HJHS) is a tool used to assess joint changes in patients with haemophilia. There is lack of consensus on the interpretation of HJHS scores and their clinical relevance.

Aim

To evaluate available literature reporting HJHS changes over time and assess a possible cut-off value for clinically relevant outcomes and the ideal follow-up for a meaningful score change.

Methods

We conducted a literature search of studies published between 2011 and 2023 where the HJHS version 2.1 had been adopted to detect changes in joint health in patients with haemophilia. We focused on studies that assessed clinical relevance of HJHS changes, evaluated the use of cut-off values and reported a follow-up over time.

Results

Our search identified 213 publications of which 53 (25%) were deemed relevant for this review. Of these, 33 (62%) publications reported the total HJHS score and 20 (38%) reported a single joint HJHS score, while the way of reporting HJHS scores/change was highly variable. Ten publications (19%) assessed clinical relevance, but their methods of calculation differed (defining a cut-off score, measuring standardised response mean or minimal detectable change). The follow-up duration varied from 2 weeks to 8 years in these 10 studies.

Conclusions

High variability in assessing HJHS change over time is the primary consequence of its low sensitivity, and the lack of consensus on interpretation and clinical relevance of the score. Therefore, more sensitive tools should be used alongside HJHS to better define the joint health status of patients with haemophilia.

Background

The development of haemophilic arthropathy causes joint damage that leads to functional impairment that limits the performance of activities in patients with haemophilia. The aim was to identify the best predictive model for performing instrumental activities of daily living in adult patients with haemophilia arthropathy.

Methods

Cross-sectional cohort study. 102 patients were recruited. The dependent variable was the performance of instrumental activities of daily living (Lawton and Brody scale). The dependence on the performance of activities of daily living was the dependent endpoint (Barthel scale). The secondary variables were joint damage (Hemophilia Joint Health Score), pain intensity, and clinical, anthropometric, and sociodemographic variables.

Results

The degree of dependence, joint damage, pain intensity, and marital status (Cp = 5.60) were the variables that best explain the variability in the performance of instrumental activities of daily living (R²_adj = 0.51). Loss of predictive capacity is acceptable with good mean internal (R² mean = 0.40) and external (R²-r² = 0.09) validation. According to the predictive pattern obtained, patients with haemophilia, who were married, without joint pain or damage, and independent in their day-to-day lives, had a score of 7.91 points (95% CI: 7.42; 8.39) in the performance of instrumental activities of daily living.

Conclusions

The predictive model for the functional capacity of instrumental activities of daily living in haemophilia patients encompasses factors such as level of autonomy, joint impairment, pain severity, and marital status. Notably, despite the presence of joint damage, individuals with haemophilia exhibit a significant level of independence in carrying out both basic daily tasks and instrumental activities of daily living.

International registration number

Id NCT04715100.

Introduction

Despite the progress in gene editing platforms like CRISPR/Cas9 with the potential to transform the standard of care for haemophilia, the language used to explain and discuss gene editing is not aligned across the haemophilia community. Here, we present the objective and rationale for developing a clear, consistent, and globally aligned gene editing lexicon to address these communication gaps.

Methods

Effectively communicating complex gene editing concepts requires a clear and consistent vocabulary. Through collaboration with a diversity of haemophilia stakeholders, our main goal is to develop an accurate, informative lexicon which avoids overpromising or highly technical terminology. Using an innovative process, representatives from several patient and scientific haemophilia organizations and select biotechnology companies will develop and refine language concepts to be tested with approximately seventy participants across the United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants will include lived experience experts (LEEs) and haematologists. The process will be overseen by the Lexicon Steering Committee of global experts from leading scientific and patient organizations in the haemophilia and gene editing fields.

Results

Initial feedback provided a robust foundation and rationale for building clear, consistent language around gene editing. This lexicon development framework will allow for increased understanding across the haemophilia community, including the development of valid informed consent and shared decision-making materials.

Conclusion

Results provide important building blocks for stimuli development and highlight the need for a novel gene editing lexicon. In the next phase, language stimuli will be tested with LEEs and haematologists to better understand audience preferences and help shape the final lexicon.

Introduction

The severity of Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is currently based on laboratory phenotype. However, little is known about the severity of the patient's experience with the disease. The most recent VWD guidelines highlight the need for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in VWD.

Aim

The study aimed to investigate the patient-perspective on VWD severity and to identify key factors that determine the severity of disease experienced by patients.

Materials and methods

Patients participated in a nationwide cross-sectional study on VWD in the Netherlands (WiN-study). Patients filled in a questionnaire containing questions on the experienced severity of VWD (4-point scale), bleeding score (BS) and quality of life (QoL).

Results

We included 736 patients, median age of 41.0 years (IQR 23.0–55.0) and 59.5% were women. A total of 443 had type 1, 269 type 2 and 24 type 3 VWD. Self-reported severity of VWD was categorized as severe (n = 52), moderate (n = 171), mild (n = 393) or negligible (n = 120). Classification by historically lowest FVIII:C levels < 0.20 IU/mL as a proxy for severe VWD aligned with patient-reported severity classification with a 72% accuracy. Type 3 VWD (OR = 4.02, 95%CI: 1.72–9.45), higher BS (OR = 1.09, 95%CI: 1.06–1.11), female sex (OR = 1.36, 95%CI: 1.01–1.83), haemostatic treatment in the year preceding study inclusion (OR = 1.53, 95%CI: 1.10–2.13) and historically lowest VWF:Act levels (OR = 0.26, 95%CI: 0.07–1.00) were independent determinants of patient-reported severity.

Conclusion

This study shows that patient-reported data provide novel insights into the determinants of experienced disease severity. Our findings highlight the need for studies on PROs with validated questionnaires to assess the burden of VWD.

Introduction

The use of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical settings is becoming more prevalent. The evolving and increasingly complex treatment landscape of haemophilia management has augmented the need and desire for SDM between patients and their healthcare team. SDM tools have been used in other chronic conditions and can be an effective form of education for patients and clinicians.

Aim

The World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) partnered with people with haemophilia (PWH), patient advocacy groups, and healthcare practitioners to form an expert working group to develop an educational tool for PWH and their caregivers. The primary objectives included educating PWH on the available prophylactic treatments and facilitating discussion between PWH and their healthcare team.

Methods

The tool was proposed and developed by the expert working group, workshopped at conference round tables, and evaluated in two focus groups.

Results

The interactive WFH SDM Tool guides users through the SDM treatment journey and provides an opportunity for reflection on current disease impact and treatment preferences, educational fact sheets and videos, and a comparison between treatment classes. Two forms of the SDM Tool are available: an online platform with a summary page that may be printed and shared and a printable workbook. All evidence in the tool is based on the prescribing information or phase III clinical trial publications. The Tool will be updated twice each year.

Conclusion

The WFH SDM Tool is the first available resource that translates published guidance on SDM in haemophilia into a practical, user-friendly tool aimed at facilitating patient-centred treatment decisions.

Key Points