Background Limited data exist on the impact of prophylaxis on adults with severe hemophilia A and pre-existing joint disease. Objectives To describe 3-year bleeding, joint health and structure, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and other outcomes from the open-label, randomized, multinational SPINART study. Patients/Methods Males aged 12-50 years with severe hemophilia A, ≥ 150 factor VIII exposure days, no inhibitors and no prophylaxis for > 12 consecutive months in the past 5 years were randomized to sucrose-formulated recombinant FVIII prophylaxis or on-demand therapy (OD). Data collected included total and joint bleeding events (BEs), joint structure (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), joint health (Colorado Adult Joint Assessment Scale [CAJAS]), HRQoL, pain, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), activity, and treatment satisfaction. Results Following 3 years of prophylaxis, adults maintained excellent adherence, with a 94% reduction in BEs despite severe pre-existing arthropathy; 35.7% and 76.2% of prophylaxis participants were bleed-free or had fewer than two BEs per year, respectively. As compared with OD, prophylaxis was associated with improved CAJAS scores (least squares [LS] mean, - 0.31 [n = 42] versus + 0.63 [n = 42]) and HAEMO-QoL-A scores (LS mean, + 3.98 [n = 41] versus - 6.00 [n = 42]), less chronic pain (50% decrease), and approximately two-fold less HRU; activity, Euro QoL-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L) scores and satisfaction scores also favored prophylaxis. However, MRI score changes were not different for prophylaxis versus OD (LS mean, + 0.79 [n = 41] versus + 0.96 [n = 38]). Conclusions Over a period of 3 years, prophylaxis versus OD in adults with severe hemophilia A and arthropathy led to decreased bleeding, pain, and HRU, better joint health, activity, satisfaction, and HRQoL, but no reduction in structural arthropathy progression, suggesting that pre-existing joint arthropathy may be irreversible.
Risk of type 1 diabetes at 3 years is high for initially multiple and single Ab+ IT and multiple Ab+ NT. Genetic predisposition, age, and male sex are significant risk factors for development of Ab+ in twins.
Background: People with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged <21 years are eligible for subsidised continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) products under the Australian National Diabetes Services Scheme. There are few real-world published studies to evaluate the benefits of CGM in young adults.Aims: To perform a real-world observation study among youth with T1D to evaluate CGM use and benefits of CGM.Methods: Patients at the Westmead Hospital Young Adult Diabetes Clinic aged 15-21 years who commenced CGM before July 2018 were followed for 6 months post commencement of CGM. Differences in HbA1c and glucose metrics at baseline and follow up are compared between those commencing CGM and those that did not.Results: Forty-four (38%) of 115 eligible patients commenced CGM. Demographic characteristics and baseline HbA1c did not differ significantly between those started on CGM and those that did not. At 6 months, 18 (41%) of 44 patients still used CGM, with discomfort and inconvenience the most common reasons for dropout. In CGM continuers, at 6 months compared with baseline, there was no change in HbA1c (8.2% vs 8.0%; P = 0.8), coefficient of variation of glucose (38% vs 39%; P = 0.5) or percentage time in range (52% vs 58%; P = 0.3). Six-month follow-up HbA1c in CGM non-users deteriorated significantly compared with users. Mean hypoglycaemia fear scores (worry scale) were significantly decreased from baseline at 6 months (33 vs 18; P < 0.01). Conclusion:There are high rates of discontinuation in CGM use among youth with T1D. At 6 months of CGM use, there was no significant change in glycaemic control, although HbA1c in non-users deteriorated significantly. Worry of hypoglycaemia was significantly decreased among those who continued CGM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.