Transcript Slide 1
Maggie Constantine, MD, FRCPC
Resident, Transfusion Medicine
UBC
TMR Journal Club – November 7, 2007
1
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background
Joint disease
Hemarthrosis
Acute inflammation
Pain, swelling, loss of function
Predisposition to future bleeding
Chronic synovial hypertrophy
Destruction of cartilage
Loss of joint space
Hemophiliac arthropathy
Carcao M, Aledort L. Blood Rev. 2004;18:101-113.
2
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Staging/Grading joint disease
3
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Staging/Grading joint disease
4
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Prophylaxis or no prophylaxis
Prophylaxis (primary)
Treatment by IV injection of factor concentrate in
anticipation of and in order to prevent bleeding
(Consensus statement. Haemophilia 2003)
FVIII at least twice a week
FVIII 25-40 U/kg given on alternate days (min 3
days/week)
Commence prior to age 2 or 3 - prior to joint
damage
5
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Prophylaxis, the benefits
Malmo (Sweden) experience
25 year experience
60 patients - both severe hemophilia A and B
Virtually no bleeds and maintenance of perfect joints if:
Started prophylaxis at a very young age (1-2 years old)
FVIII given in large doses (2000-9000 U/kg/year)
Joints already damaged prior to prophylaxis underwent
progressive deterioration despite prophylaxis
Irrespective of future bleeding in joints
Nilsson IM et al. J Intern Med 1992;232:25-32.
6
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Prophylaxis, the benefits
Aledort L et al. J Intern Med 1994;236:391-9.
On-demand vs prophylaxis
Prophylaxis
Fewer joint bleeds
Fewer total bleeding episodes
Better initial and final orthopedic and radiological scores
Annual use of factor concentrates was 3 times higher
7
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Prophylaxis, the recommendations
1994, National Hemophilia Foundation with World
Federation of Hemophilia and WHO
Prophylaxis considered optimal therapy for children with
severe hemophilia
Prophylaxis be instituted early with trough levels >/= 1%
Need to evaluate joints, document complications and
costs
Prophylaxis to be considered for other age groups
8
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - AHCDC
Provide prophylaxis (primary and
secondary) to patients in accordance with
AHCDC recommendations and best
practice.
http://www.ahcdc.ca/documents/CanadianHemophiliaStandardsFirstEdition070612_1.pdf
9
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - AHCDC
Recent studies suggest that prophylactic infusion to maintain
clotting-factor levels above 0.01 U/mL (more than 1% activity) at
all times prevents most episodes of spontaneous bleeding into
joints and preserves joint function.<19-23> Clinical studies are
now underway in Canada to find the proper dose, and to confirm
the efficacy and cost-benefit ratio of this mode of management.
Studies are also needed to assess the safety, efficacy and costbenefit ratio of continuous versus pulse coagulation-product infusion in prophylactic therapy.
http://www.ahcdc.ca/vWDManagement.html
10
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Prophylaxis, the gap analysis
North American hemophilia treatment
centers
Survey
Prophylaxis: only 51% of boys with severe
hemophilia A under 18 yo
30% of severe hemophilia A </= 5 yo were
receiving full dose prophlaxis
Blanchette VS et al. Haemophilia 2003;19(Suppl 9):19-26.
11
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Background - Prophylaxis, why the gap
Burdens
Cost
Frequent veni-puncture
Need for CVC
CVC complications - thrombosis (20-60%, not all with
inhibitors), infection, malfunction
Thrombotic complications
Inhibitor development
12
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Whether prophylaxis prevents joint hemorrhage
and damage
Multicenter
Randomized, open-label
Prophylaxis vs intensive replacement
August 1996 to April 2005
Long list of disclosures: Bayer HealthCare
donated the FVIII (otherwise no other role)
13
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Inclusion
Age less than 30 mos
FVIII activity level of 2 U/dL or less
History of two or fewer hemorrhages into each
index joint
Normal baseline joint imaging
Undetectable levels of FVIII inhibitor
Normal platelet count
Normal joint motion
14
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Prophylaxis
FVIII 25 IU /kg q2d
Hemarthroses
FVIII 40 IU/kg
Prophylaxis resumed
the next day
Episodic
Treated only at the time of
clinically recognized
hemarthroses
FVIII 40 IU/kg at the time
of joint hemorrhage
20 IUkg at 24 hours and
72 hours after first dose
Continue infusions of 20
IU/kg q2d until pain and
impairment of mobility
resolved
15
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Primary outcome
Preservation of indexjoint structure
Determined by MRI
and plain-film x-ray at
completion of study
Joint failure:
Secondary outcomes
# of joint and other
bleeding events
Number of infusions
Total units of FVIII
administered
subchondral cyst,
surface erosion, jointspace narrowing
16
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Power calculation
Pilot data indicating that normal joint structure would be
maintained in 70% of children receiving prophylaxis and
20% of those receiving enhanced episodic therapy
Estimated proportions of loss of participants were 10% for
follow-up
64 participants needed to detect a significant difference
between the two treatments with a two-sided test (0.05
alpha level and 95% power)
17
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Radiologists blinded to treatment arm
Randomization was performed centrally
and stratified by site in permuted blocks of
2, 4 or 6
18
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Protocol failure
Allowance for “early termination of participation” if (also
defined as serious adverse events)
Development of FVIII inhibitor
Life-threatening hemorrhage
Bone/cartilage damage on joint imaging
(death also a serious adverse event)
Withdrawn from study if
FVIII inhibitor titre >25 BU on duplicate testing over 3 mos
Recurrent life-threatening hemorrhage
Early joint evaluation showed bone or cartilate damage
19
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary
Statistical analysis
Primary outcome
Proportion of children in whom normal joint
structure was maintained, as determined by MRI
or x-ray
Intention-to-treat analysis
20
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
21
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
22
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
23
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
Prophylaxis
MRI
P Value
24
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
25
Prevention of joint disease in hemophilia
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
26
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
27
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
28
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Results
29
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Discussion and Conclusions
> 1/2 of joint abnormalities detected by MRI
were not apparent on x-ray
“We believe that MRI is the preferable imaging
technique for young boys with hemophilia.”
30
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Discussion and Conclusions
# of clinically evident hemarthroses
correlated weakly with the primary outcome
“…chronic microhemorrhage into the joints….
Causes deterioration of joints without clinical
evidence of hemarthroses and that prophylaxis
prevents this subclinical process.”
31
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Study summary - Discussion and Conclusions
“This study demonstrates the efficacy of
prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIII in
reducing the incidence of joint
hemorrhages, life-threatening
hemorrhages, and other hemorrhages in
and in lowering the risk of joint damage…”
“However, the high cost of recombinant
factor VIII is a barrier to widespread
acceptance of prophylaxis.”
32
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Critical appraisal
Randomized? YES - centrally and stratified by site
in permuted blocks of 2,4, or 6
Follow-up complete? NO
A priori assumption of 10% loss of participants in follow-up
1 in episodic-therapy arm “lost to follow-up”
Intention-to-treat analysis? YES
Blinded? NO
Patients and clinicians were not blinded
Radiologists reading MRI and x-rays were blinded
33
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Critical appraisal
Groups similar at start of trial? YES
Aside from experimental intervention - groups
treated similarly? Unclear
Compliance 96% in prophylaxis group
98% in episodic
But did participants receive additional rFVIII?
RR of joint damage in the episodic group
by MRI is 6.1 (95% CI, 1.5 to 24.4)
by x-ray 5.2 (95% CI, 0.65 to 41.5)
34
Manco-Johnson et al. NEJM 2007;357(6)
Critical appraisal
How would the results of this study change my
clinical practice?
% of episodic patients with joint disease=51.5%
% of prophylaxis patients with joint disease=21.8%
AAR = 29.6%
NNT=3.36 (95% CI 1.9 to 13.6)
If cost is not a concern, then YES I would recommend
prophylaxis to severe hemophilia A boys to start prior to
30 mos of age, to prevent joint disease in index joints.
35
Maggie Constantine, MD, FRCPC
Resident, Transfusion Medicine
UBC
TMR Journal Club – November 7, 2007
Comments? Questions?
36