4.6 Article

The frequency of joint hemorrhages and procedures in nonsevere hemophilia A vs B

Journal

BLOOD ADVANCES
Volume 2, Issue 16, Pages 2136-2144

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018020552

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Division of Blood Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  2. CDC
  3. US HTCN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data are needed on minimal factor activity (FA) levels required to prevent bleeding in hemophilia. We aimed to evaluate associations between hemophilia type and FA level and joint bleeding and orthopedic procedures using longitudinal data. Data were collected over an 11-year period on males with nonsevere hemophilia A or B without inhibitors who were receiving on-demand factor replacement therapy. Data on the number of joint bleeds in the previous 6 months and data on procedures from clinical records were analyzed using regression models. Data were collected on 4771 patients (hemophilia A, 3315; hemophilia B, 1456) from 19 979 clinic visits. Ages ranged from 2 to 91 years and baseline FA level ranged from 1% to 49% with a mean of 9.4%. Joint bleeding rates were heterogeneous across the FA range and were highest among men age 25 to 44 years. Adjusted for FA level, the mean number of joint bleeds per 6 months was 1.4 and 0.7 for patients with hemophilia A and B, respectively (P < .001). Regression models predicted 1.4 and 0.6 bleeds per year for hemophilia A and B patients, respectively, at an FA level of 15%. Patients with hemophilia B were 30% less likely than those with hemophilia A to have undergone an orthopedic procedure. We conclude that joint bleed rates for any given FA level were higher among hemophilia A than hemophilia B patients, and target FA levels of 15% are unlikely to prevent all joint bleeding in US males with hemophilia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available