Search

Background: Von Willebrand Disease (VWD) is a common inherited bleeding disorder. Patients with VWD suffering from severe bleeding may benefit from the use of secondary long‐term prophylaxis. Aim: Systematically summarize the evidence on the clinical outcomes of secondary long‐term prophylaxis in patients with VWD and severe recurrent bleedings. Methods: We searched Medline and EMBASE through October 2019 for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies (OS) assessing the effects of secondary long‐term prophylaxis in patients with VWD. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and the RoB for Non‐Randomized Studies of interventions (ROBINS‐I) tool to assess the quality of the included studies. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: We included 12 studies. Evidence from one placebo controlled RCT suggested that VWD prophylaxis as compared to no prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding episodes (Rate ratio [RR],.24; 95% confidence interval [CI],.17–.35; low certainty evidence), and of epistaxis (RR,.38; 95%CI,.21–.67; moderate certainty evidence), and may increase serious adverse events RR 2.73 (95%CI.12–59.57; low certainty). Evidence from four before‐and‐after studies in which researchers reported comparative data suggested that VWD prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding (RR.34; 95%CI,.25–.46; very low certainty evidence). Conclusion: VWD prophylaxis treatment seems to reduce the risk of spontaneous bleeding, epistaxis, and hospitalizations. More RCTs should be conducted to increase the certainty in these benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: von Willebrand disease (VWD) is an inherited bleeding disorder caused by a quantitative or qualitative dysfunction of von Willebrand factor. Clinicians, patients and other stakeholders have many questions about the diagnosis and management of the disease. Aim: To identify topics of highest importance to stakeholders that could be addressed by guidelines to be developed by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH). Methods: A survey to determine and prioritize topics to be addressed in the collaborative development of guidelines for VWD was distributed to international stakeholders including patients, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs). Representatives of the four organizations coordinated the distribution strategy. The survey focused on both diagnosis and management of VWD, soliciting 7‐point Likert‐scale responses and open‐ended comments, in English, French and Spanish. We conducted descriptive analysis with comparison of results by stakeholder type, gender and countries' income classification for the rating questions and qualitative conventional content data analysis for the open‐ended responses. Results: A total of 601 participants responded to the survey (49% patients/caregivers and 51% healthcare providers). The highest priority topics identified were diagnostic criteria/classification, bleeding assessment tools and treatment options for women and surgical patients. In contrast, screening for anaemia and differentiating plasma‐derived therapy versus recombinant therapies received lower ratings. Conclusion: This survey highlighted areas of importance to a diverse representation of stakeholders in the diagnosis and management of VWD, providing a framework for future guideline development and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]