Refine
Document Type
- Article (24)
Has Fulltext
- yes (24)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (24)
Keywords
- gene therapy (5)
- haemophilia treatment (4)
- treatment centres (4)
- haemophilia care (3)
- Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (2)
- von Willebrand disease (2)
- von Willebrand factor (2)
- ADAMTS-13 (1)
- ADAMTS13 (1)
- AML (1)
Institute
- Medizin (24)
Introduction: Prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates in children with haemophilia A (HA) is current standard of care. The benefit of prophylactic treatment for adult HA patients is not commonly accepted.
Aim: To investigate the benefit of prophylaxis over on‐demand treatment in adult and elderly patients with severe or non‐severe HA in a real‐life setting.
Methods: Data from 163 patients comprising 1202 patient‐years were evaluated for 7.5 (±5.3) years. The effects on the annual bleeding rate (ABR, including spontaneous and traumatic bleeds) of treatment with a plasma‐derived FVIII concentrate, the patient's age and disease severity were investigated. The effect of changing the treatment from on demand to continuous prophylaxis on the patients’ ABRs was further analysed.
Results: Prophylaxis had the greatest effect on the ABRs of patients of any age with severe or non‐severe HA. The difference in ABR of all patients treated on demand (median 31.4; interquartile range (IQR) 27.6; N = 83) compared with those treated prophylactically (median 1.3; IQR 3.6; N = 122) was statistically significant (P < .05), even for patients with non‐severe HA (median 8.4; IQR 15.5; N = 11) vs median 1.5; IQR 4.2 (N = 17), P < .05). Patients, aged up to 88 years, switching from on demand to continuous prophylaxis showed the lowest median ABR (1.1; N = 51) after their regimen change.
Conclusion: Any (even low‐frequency) prophylaxis results in lower ABR than on‐demand treatment. Patients switching to prophylaxis benefitted the most, irrespective of age or HA severity. Prophylactic treatment—even tertiary—is the regimen of choice for patients of any age, including elderly patients, with severe or non‐severe HA.
Introduction: There is limited awareness of von Willebrand disease (VWD), leading to challenges in both diagnosis and defining the optimal treatment approach for these patients. Patients with VWD are typically treated on-demand, with short-term prophylaxis used during surgery. In contrast, early initiation, and long-term use of prophylaxis is the standard of care in patients with severe haemophilia and can be successfully used to prevent joint bleeding and reduce chronic arthropathy.
Aim: To provide an understanding of the current evidence for the prophylactic treatment of patients with VWD and compare this to the management of patients with haemophilia.
Methods: Review of published literature using a non-systematic search of PubMed and reference lists of sourced articles.
Results: The successes seen with prophylaxis in haemophilia provide the rationale for long-term prophylaxis in patients with severe forms of VWD; preventing spontaneous, excessive and sometimes life-threatening bleeding, and reducing chronic joint disease. Currently, there are a few clinical trials assessing the long-term benefits of prophylaxis in VWD, and guidelines for the optimal prophylaxis treatment approach are lacking. Greater attempts to provide comprehensive, long-term care for patients with VWD are needed but still lacking within the community. This review highlights the success of prophylaxis in haemophilia and how this knowledge might be applied and translated to patients with VWD.
Conclusions: Lessons can be learned from the use of prophylaxis in haemophilia and prophylaxis should be considered the standard of care for a subgroup of patients with severe VWD.
Background: Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherent bleeding disorder. Gingival bleeding is a frequently reported symptom of VWD. However, gingival bleeding is also a leading symptom of plaque-induced gingivitis and untreated periodontal disease. In type 1 VWD gingival bleeding was not increased compared to controls. Thus, this study evaluated whether type 2 and 3 VWD determines an increased susceptibility to gingival bleeding in response to the oral biofilm.
Methods: Twenty-four cases and 24 controls matched for age, sex, periodontal diagnosis, number of teeth and smoking were examined hematologically (VWF antigen, VWF activity, factor VIII activity) and periodontally (Gingival Bleeding Index [GBI]), bleeding on probing [BOP], Plaque Control Record [PCR], periodontal inflamed surface area [PISA], vertical probing attachment level).
Results: BOP (VWD: 14.5±10.1%; controls: 12.3±5.3%; p = 0.542) and GBI (VWD: 10.5±9.9%; controls: 8.8±4.8%; p = 0.852) were similar for VWD and controls. Multiple regressions identified female sex, HbA1c, PCR and PISA to be associated with BOP. HbA1c and PCR were associated with GBI. Number of remaining teeth was negatively correlated with BOP and GBI.
Conclusion: Type 2 and 3 VWD are not associated with a more pronounced inflammatory response to the oral biofilm in terms of BOP and GBI.
Evaluation of a rapid turn-over, fully-automated ADAMTS13 activity assay: a method comparison study
(2020)
Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening thrombotic microangiopathy caused by severely reduced activity of the von-Willebrand factor-cleaving protease ADAMTS13, mainly caused by anti-ADAMTS-13 antibodies. Although several test systems for ADAMTS13 measurement exist, long turn-around times hamper the usability in daily practice. We performed a method comparison study for two commercially available ADAMTS13 assays and evaluated the agreement between the fully-automated rapid turn-over HemosIL AcuStar ADAMTS13 Activity assay and the manually performed TECHNOZYM ADAMTS-13 Activity assay. Twenty-four paired test samples derived from 10 consecutively recruited patients (n = 8, acquired TTP; n = 1, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome; n = 1, control), of which nine test samples were collected in case of clinically apparent TTP and 13 samples were collected from TTP patients in clinical remission were included. Overall correlation between the TECHNOZYM and AcuStar assay was good with a Pearson R of 0.93 (p < 0.001). Agreement between the assays assessed with the Passing–Bablok analysis showed high agreement with an Intercept of − 2.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], − 5.07 to − 0.86) and Slope of 1.04 (95% CI 0.84–1.17). The absolute mean bias was 2.54% (standard difference [SD], 6.38%; 95% CI to 10.0–15.05%). Intra-method reliability was high with an absolute mean bias of − 0.13% (SD 3.21%; 95% CI to 6.42–6.16%). The observer agreement for categorial thresholds (> or < 10% ADAMTS3 activity) was kappa = 0.82 (95% CI 0.59–1.0). Conclusively, overall agreement between the testing methods was sufficient and we support previously published data suggesting the AcuStar assay being a valuable and accurate tool for ADAMTS13 activity testing and TTP diagnostics.