search for




 

Original Article
Joint Health Status in Hemophilia Patients Using Hemophilia Joint Health Score and Pettersson Score
Clin Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2018;25:108-15.
Published online October 31, 2018
© 2018 Korean Society of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology and Korean Society for Pediatric Neuro-Oncology

Yun Young Roh, M.D.1,2, Young Ha Choi, M.D.1,2, Mina Park, R.N.3, Jung Hwa Hahn, R.N.3, Sun Hee Kim, R.N.3, Yoon Jung Shin, R.N.3, Seung Min Hahn, M.D.1,2, Hee Young Lee, M.D.1,2, Jung Min Park, M.D.1,2, Jun Pyo Hong, M.D.1,2, Chuhl Joo Lyu, M.D., Ph.D.1,2 and Jung Woo Han, M.D.1,2

1Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System,
2Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei University Health System,
3Department of Nursing, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to: Jung Woo Han
Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei University Health System, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2228-2050
Fax: +82-2-393-9118
E-mail: jwhan@yuhs.ac
Received September 16, 2018; Revised September 29, 2018; Accepted October 7, 2018.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive clinical and radiologic follow-up is needed to preserve joint functions and quality of life in hemophilia using clinimetric tools such as Hemophilia joint health score (HJHS) or Pettersson score (PS). We investigated the joint health status evaluated using the tools in Korean hemophilia patients.
Methods: We reviewed retrospectively medical records to collect clinical parameters, HJHS and PS, who were followed up in Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. The correlation between HJHS and PS, and the effect of the prophylaxis for hemophilia on the outcomes measured with the scores were evaluated. The prophylaxis proportion (PP) was calculated as the proportion of prophylaxis duration to each patient’s life time.
Results: Total of 28 patients with severe hemophilia were enrolled. Twelve patients (42.8%) were less than 20 years old. Total of 23 patients had experienced prophylaxis during their lives, and median PP was 39.7%. There was significant correlation between HJHS and PS (P<0.001). Each score was positively correlated with patient’s age (P<0.001). PP was negatively correlated with either HJHS or PS (P<0.001, respectively). There was significant correlation between either HJHS or PS and the PP in the group of patients <20 years old, but there was no correlation in the group of >20 years old.
Conclusion: HJHS and PS were positively correlated. Each score increased as the patient’s age increased. The prophylaxis had protective effect on joint health. The prospective evaluation of HJHS and PS will be needed to prove the effect of proper management on the joint health status.
Keywords: Hemophilia, Arthropathies, Level of health, Patient outcome assessment
References
  1. Carcao MD. The diagnosis and management of congenital hemophilia. Semin Thromb Hemost 2012;38:727-34.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Stonebraker JS, Bolton-Maggs PH, Soucie JM, Walker I, Brooker M. A study of variations in the reported haemophilia A prevalence around the world. Haemophilia 2010;16:20-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Nilsson IM, Hedner U, Ahlberg A. Haemophilia prophylaxis in Sweden. Acta Paediatr Scand 1976;65:129-35.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Srivastava A, Brewer AK, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, et al. Guidelines for the management of hemophilia. Haemophilia 2013;19:e1-47.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Fischer K, Poonnoose P, Dunn AL, et al. Choosing outcome assessment tools in haemophilia care and research: a multidisciplinary perspective. Haemophilia 2017;23:11-24.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Feldman BM, Funk SM, Bergstrom BM, et al. Validation of a new pediatric joint scoring system from the International Hemophilia Prophylaxis Study Group: validity of the hemophilia joint health score. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:223-30.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Nijdam A, Bladen M, Hubert N, et al. Using routine haemophilia joint health score for international comparisons of haemophilia outcome: standardization is needed. Haemophilia 2016;22:142-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Poonnoose PM, Hilliard P, Doria AS, et al. Correlating clinical and radiological assessment of joints in haemophilia: results of a cross sectional study. Haemophilia 2016;22:925-33.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Doria AS. State-of-the-art imaging techniques for the evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy: present and future. Haemophilia 2010;16 Suppl 5:107-14.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Foppen W, van der Schaaf IC, Beek FJ, Verkooijen HM, Fischer K. Scoring haemophilic arthropathy on X-rays: improving inter- and intra-observer reliability and agreement using a consensus atlas. Eur Radiol 2016;26:1963-70.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. International Prophylaxis Study Group. Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) version 2.1 Instruction Manual. Toronto, Canada: IPSG, 2006. (Accessed September 1, 2018, at http://www.ipsg.ca/working-groups/physical-health-andjoint-function-formerly-physical-therapy/info/hjhs)
  12. Beeton K, De Kleijn P, Hilliard P, et al. Recent developments in clinimetric instruments. Haemophilia 2006;12 Suppl 3:102-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Hilliard P, Funk S, Zourikian N, et al. Hemophilia joint health score reliability study. Haemophilia 2006;12:518-25.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Pettersson H, Ahlberg A, Nilsson IM. A radiologic classification of hemophilic arthropathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;149:153-9.
    CrossRef
  15. Silva M, Luck JV Jr, Quon D, et al. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of radiographic scores commonly used for the evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy. Haemophilia 2008;14:504-12.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Stephensen D, Tait RC, Brodie N, et al. Changing patterns of bleeding in patients with severe haemophilia A. Haemophilia 2009;15:1210-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Kuijlaars IAR, Timmer MA, de Kleijn P, Pisters MF, Fischer K. Monitoring joint health in haemophilia: Factors associated with deterioration. Haemophilia 2017;23:934-40.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Oldenburg J. Optimal treatment strategies for hemophilia: achievements and limitations of current prophylactic regimens. Blood 2015;125:2038-44.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Lundin B, Ljung R, Pettersson H; European Paediatric Network for Haemophilia Management (PEDNET). MRI scores of ankle joints in children with haemophilia-comparison with clinical data. Haemophilia 2005;11:116-22.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Seuser A, Djambas Khayat C, Negrier C, Sabbour A, Heijnen L. Evaluation of early musculoskeletal disease in patients with haemophilia: results from an expert consensus. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2018;29:509-20.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Khawaji M, Astermark J, Berntorp E. Lifelong prophylaxis in a large cohort of adult patients with severe haemophilia: a beneficial effect on orthopaedic outcome and quality of life. Eur J Haematol 2012;88:329-35.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Ling G, Nathwani AC, Tuddenham EGD. Recent advances in developing specific therapies for haemophilia. Br J Haematol 2018;181:161-72.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Peters R, Harris T. Advances and innovations in haemophilia treatment. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2018;17:493-508.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Pipe SW. Gene therapy for hemophilia. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018;65.
    CrossRef
  25. Ruiz-Sáez A. Comprehensive care in hemophilia. Hematology 2012;17 Suppl 1:S141-3.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Skinner MW, Soucie JM, Mclaughlin K. The national haemophilia program standards, evaluation and oversight systems in the United States of America. Blood Transfus 2014;12 Suppl 3:e542-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed


October 2018, 25 (2)