Key Points• High-dose intensive factor VIII treatment increases the risk for inhibitor development in patients with severe hemophilia A.• In patients with severe hemophilia A, factor VIII prophylaxis decreases inhibitor risk, especially in patients with low-risk F8 mutations.The objective of this study was to examine the association of the intensity of treatment, ranging from high-dose intensive factor VIII (FVIII) treatment to prophylactic treatment, with the inhibitor incidence among previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A. This cohort study aimed to include consecutive patients with a FVIII activity < 0.01 IU/mL, born between 2000 and 2010, and observed during their first 75 FVIII exposure days. Intensive FVIII treatment of hemorrhages or surgery at the start of treatment was associated with an increased inhibitor risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.0). High-dose FVIII treatment was associated with a higher inhibitor risk than low-dose FVIII treatment (aHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.0-4.8). Prophylaxis was only associated with a decreased overall inhibitor incidence after 20 exposure days of FVIII. The association with prophylaxis was more pronounced in patients with low-risk F8 genotypes than in patients with high-risk F8 genotypes (aHR, 0.61, 95% CI, 0.85, 95% CI, respectively). In conclusion, our findings suggest that in previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A, high-dosed intensive FVIII treatment increases inhibitor risk and prophylactic FVIII treatment decreases inhibitor risk, especially in patients with low-risk F8 mutations. (Blood. 2013;121(20):4046-4055)

Key Points Compared with intermediate-dose prophylaxis (3 × 1000 IU/wk), high-dose prophylaxis (3 × 2000 IU/wk) resulted in a 66% higher total cost. At age 24 years, high-dose prophylaxis resulted in a small reduction in bleeding and hemophilic arthropathy, but equal quality of life.

To prevent hemophilic arthropathy, prophylactic treatment of children with severe hemophilia should be started before joint damage has occurred. However, treatment is expensive, and the burden of regular venipunctures in young children is high. With the aim of providing information on starting prophylaxis on the basis of individual patient characteristics, the effect of postponing prophylaxis on longterm arthropathy was studied in a cohort of 76 patients with severe hemophilia born between 1965 and 1985. The median age at first joint bleed was 2.2 years (range, 0.2-5.8). Prophylaxis was started at a median age of 6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4-9), and the median annual clotting factor use on prophylaxis was 1750 IU/kg/y (31 IU/kg/wk). Hemophilic arthropathy was measured by the Pettersson score (maximum, 78 points). At a median age of 19 years, the median Pettersson score was 7 points (IQR, 0-17). After 2 decades of follow-up, the Pettersson score was 8% higher (95% confidence interval, 1%-16%) for every year prophylaxis was postponed after the first joint bleed. This effect was independent of age at Pettersson score, age at first joint bleed, and prophylactic dose used. In conclusion, most patients have their first joint bleed after the age of 2 years. Patients who start prophylaxis soon after the first joint bleed show little arthropathy in adulthood. The longer the start of prophylaxis is postponed after the first joint bleed, the higher the risk of developing arthropathy.

A multicentre study was performed to compare clotting factor use and outcome between on-demand and prophylactic treatment strategies for patients with severe haemophilia. Data on treatment and outcome of 49 Dutch patients with severe haemophilia, born 1970-80, primarily treated with prophylaxis, were compared with those of 106 French patients, who were primarily treated on demand. Dutch patients received intermediate dose prophylaxis, for a median duration of 12.7 years. Patients primarily treated with prophylaxis had fewer joint bleeds per year (median 2.8 vs. 11.5), a higher proportion of patients without joint bleeds (29% vs. 9%), lower clinical scores (median 2.0 vs. 8.0), and less arthropathy as measured by the Pettersson score (median 7 points vs. 16 points). Mean annual clotting factor use was equal at 1,488 +/- 783 IU kg-1 year-1 (mean +/- standard deviation) for patients primarily treated with prophylaxis and 1,612 +/- 1,442 IU kg-1 year-1 for patients primarily treated on demand. These findings suggest that, compared with a primarily on-demand treatment strategy, a primarily prophylactic treatment strategy leads to better outcome at equal treatment costs in young adults with severe haemophilia.

Many studies in the field of haemophilia and other coagulation deficiencies require analyses of bleeding frequencies. In haemophilia, the association of bleeding frequency with factor VIII (FVIII) activity levels is known from experience, but significant results are lacking. Bleeding frequencies in haemophilia are highly skewed count data, with large proportions of zeros. Both the skewness and the high amount of zeros pose a problem for standard (linear) modelling techniques. This study investigated the optimal analysing strategy for bleeding data by using the association of residual clotting factor level and number of joint bleeds in moderate and mild patients treated on demand as example. In total, 433 patients with moderate (27%) and mild (73%) haemophilia A treated on demand were included in this study. One year of self-reported data on joint bleed frequency and baseline clotting factor activity were analysed using Poisson, negative binomial, zero-inflated Poisson, and zero-inflated negative binomial distributions. Multivariate regression analysis using negative binomial distribution provided the optimum data analytical strategy. This model showed 18% reduction [Rate ratio (RR) 0.82; 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.86] of bleeding frequency with every IU dL -1 increase in residual FVIII activity. The actual association is expected to be higher because of exclusion (30 out of 463 patients) of patients on prophylaxis (baseline FVIII levels 0.01-0.06 IU mL )1 ). The best way to analyse low frequency bleeding data is using a negative binomial distribution.