Search

7 Solms A, Shah A, Berntorp E, Lissitchkov T. Direct comparison of two extended half-life PEGylated recombinant FVIII products: a randomized, crossover pharmacokinetic study in patients with severe hemophilia A. Ann Hematol. In response to WFH guidelines for the management of haemophilia, 3rd edition: Is there a difference between extended-half-life FVIII products or not? Prophylaxis is now widely accepted as the standard of care and the only treatment able to change the bleeding phenotype in patients with haemophilia A.1 Over the last decade, extended-half-life (EHL) replacement factors have been in development to address treatment burdens associated with regular prophylaxis infusions, such as poor adherence, and to maintain high factor VIII (FVIII) trough levels required to increase bleed protection, compared with standard-half-life replacement factors.1 Several methods have been employed to extend the half-life of recombinant FVIII, including PEGylation2,3 and Fc-fusion technology,4 which have resulted in either increased protection from bleeding or effective prophylaxis regimens with longer intervals between doses, or both, compared with patients' previous standard-half-life treatment. [Extracted from the article]

Agents that control bleeding and the usage of bypassing agents have made surgery an option to consider in people with hemophilia. However, the lack of consistent definitions for major or minor surgery may lead to inconsistencies in patient management. This literature review has evaluated how surgical procedures in people with hemophilia were categorized as major or minor surgery and assessed the consistency across publications. After screening 926 potentially relevant articles, 547 were excluded and 379 full-text articles were reviewed. Ninety-five articles categorized major or minor surgical procedures; of these, 35 publications categorized three or more major or minor surgical procedures and were included for analysis. Seven (20%) publications provided varying criteria for defining major or minor surgery, five of which defined surgery according to the level of surgical invasiveness. Across all 35 publications, there was considerable variance in the categorization of major and minor surgical procedures and some overlap in surgical nomenclature (eg, type of synovectomy, arthroscopy, and central venous access device insertion/removals). The lack of consistent guidance when referring to major or minor surgery in people with hemophilia needs to be addressed. Clear and consistent definitions, achieved by consensus and promoted by relevant international hemophilia committees, are desirable, to provide guidance on appropriate treatment, to increase the accuracy of trial data and may confound the interpretation of surgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]