Beyond the bleeding rates‐ HEAD‐US joint assessment in patients treated by late prophylaxis

Age-specific incidence of joint disease in paediatric patients with haemophilia: A single-centre real-world outcome based on consecutive US examination

INTRODUCTION

Joint health is one of the most important factors contributing to a healthy life in patients with haemophilia. Recent study revealed that starting early prophylaxis was not enough to prevent joint disease in most paediatric patients with haemophilia.

AIM

In this study, we aimed to determine the age-specific incidence of acute joint disease during childhood at single haemophilia treatment centre (HTC).

METHOD

The joint health in 48 patients was evaluated based on consecutive US testing for 5 years at annual multidisciplinary comprehensive care.

RESULTS

During the study period, 23 patients (47.9%) had no joint disease since the initial examination, whereas 13 patients (27.0%) showed development from negative to positive findings. The incidence of joint disease increased with age: 0% in preschool, 5.3% in elementary school, 14.3% in junior high school and 35% beyond high school age. Among the 13 patients who developed joint disease, two experienced acquired synovitis that resolved during the follow-up period. Statistical analysis revealed that the patients who routinely underwent follow-up by the HTC exhibited a significantly lower incidence of joint disease than did those followed up at other institutions (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

These results indicated that close check-up, including routine joint examination using US as well as frequent assessment of pharmacokinetic profile at the HTC, might play an important role in avoiding joint disease among paediatric patients with haemophilia.

Clinical assessment and point of care ultrasonography: How to diagnose haemophilic synovitis

BACKGROUND

The ability of clinical tools to identify early joint changes is limited. Synovitis is a fundamental finding in understanding haemophilia activity and the response to its therapies; thus, there is a need for sensitive methods to better diagnose subclinical synovitis early.

PURPOSE

Our aim was to compare the frequency with which clinical assessment and ultrasound detected synovial hypertrophy in the most frequently affected joints in patients with haemophilia (elbows, knees and ankles).

METHODS

We analysed patients with haemophilia older than 16 years who came to the haemophilia centre for routine follow-up. From the clinical assessment carried out in the consultation, the swelling, pain and history of haemarthrosis were evaluated and compared with the findings of synovial hypertrophy detected by ultrasound. This comparison was also analysed independently for elbows, knees and ankles.

RESULTS

A total of 203 joints of 66 patients with haemophilia (mean age 34 years), most of them on secondary, tertiary prophylaxis or on demand treatment, were included. In joints with swelling, pain and history of haemarthrosis, 78% of the joints showed synovial hypertrophy on ultrasound. However, in joints with no swelling, no pain and no history of haemarthrosis, 40% presented subclinical synovial hypertrophy on ultrasound. This percentage was higher in elbows than in knees and ankles.

CONCLUSION

In adults with haemophilia, physical examination and point-of-care ultrasound study provide complementary data on their joint disease. However, without ultrasound, the ability to detect subclinical synovitis is considerably reduced, especially in the elbows.

Impact of the HEAD-US Scoring System for Observing the Protective Effect of Prophylaxis in Hemophilia Patients: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

Objective:

This study aimed to observe the preventive effect of prophylactic treatment on joint health in people with hemophilia (PwH) and to investigate the importance of integration of ultrasonographic examination into clinical and radiological evaluation of the joints.

Materials and Methods:

This national, multicenter, prospective, observational study included male patients aged ≥6 years with the diagnosis of moderate or severe hemophilia A or B from 8 centers across Turkey between January 2017 and March 2019. Patients were followed for 1 year with 5 visits (baseline and 3^rd, 6^th, 9^th, and 12^th month visits). The Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) was used for physical examination of joints, the Pettersson scoring system was used for radiological assessment, point-of-care (POC) ultrasonography was used for bilateral examinations of joints, and the Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) score was used for evaluation of ultrasonography results.

Results:

Seventy-three PwH, of whom 62 had hemophilia A and 11 had hemophilia B, were included and 24.7% had target joints at baseline. The HJHS and HEAD-US scores were significantly increased at the 12^th month in all patients. These scores were also higher in the hemophilia A subgroup than the hemophilia B subgroup. However, in the childhood group, the increment of scores was not significant. The HEAD-US total score was significantly correlated with both the HJHS total score and Pettersson total score at baseline and at the 12^th month.

Conclusion:

The HEAD-US and HJHS scoring systems are valuable tools during follow-up examinations of PwH and they complement each other. We suggest that POC ultrasonographic evaluation and the HEAD-US scoring system may be integrated into differential diagnosis of bleeding and long-term monitoring for joint health as a routine procedure.