Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Research Articles

Surgery for chronic arthropathy in people with haemophilia.

Chronic arthropathy is a potentially debilitating complication for people with haemophilia - a genetic, X-linked, recessive bleeding disorder, characterised by the absence or deficiency of a clotting factor protein. Staging classifications, such as the Arnold-Hilgartner classification for haemophilic arthropathy of the knee, radiologically reflect the extent of knee joint destruction with underlying chronic synovitis. Management of this highly morbid disease process involves intensive prophylactic measures, and chemical or radioisotope synovectomy in its early stages. However, failure of non-surgical therapy in people with progression of chronic arthropathy often prompts surgical management, including synovectomy, joint debridement, arthrodesis, and arthroplasty, depending on the type of joint and extent of the damage. To date, management of people with mild to moderate chronic arthropathy from haemophilia remains controversial; there is no agreed standard treatment. Thus, the benefits and disadvantages of non-surgical and surgical management of mild to moderate chronic arthropathy in people with haemophilia needs to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of surgery for mild to moderate chronic arthropathy in people with haemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registers to August 2022. We also handsearched relevant journals and conference abstract books. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing surgery and non-surgical interventions, for any joint with chronic arthropathy, in people with haemophilia, who were at least 12 years old. The review authors did not identify any trials to include in this review. The review authors did not identify any trials to include in this review. The review authors did not identify any trials to include in this review. Due to a lack of research in this particular area, we plan to update the literature search every two years, and will update review if any new evidence is reported. There is a need for a well-designed RCT that assesses the safety and efficacy of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for chronic arthropathy in people with haemophilia.

Clotting factor concentrates for preventing bleeding and bleeding-related complications in previously treated individuals with haemophilia A or B.

The hallmark of severe hemophilia (A or B) is recurrent bleeding into joints and soft tissues with progressive joint damage, despite on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis has long been used, but not universally adopted, because of medical, psychosocial, and cost controversies. To determine the effectiveness of clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis in managing previously-treated individuals with hemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearchingof journals and conference abstract books. In addition, we searched MEDLINE and Embase and online trial registries. Most recent search of Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 24 February 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating people with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, who were previously treated with clotting factor concentrates to manage their hemophilia. Two authors independently reviewed trials for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The authors used the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. Ten trials (including 608 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Eight of the trials (477 participants) had arms comparing two or more prophylactic regimens to one another and four of the trials (n = 258) compared prophylaxis to on-demand treatment (two trials had multiple arms and were included in both comparisons). Comparison of two or more prophylactic regimens For trials comparing one prophylaxis regimen to another, given the heterogeneity of the data, none of the data were pooled for this comparison. Considering the individual trials, three trials reported the primary outcome of joint bleeding, and none showed a dfference between dosing regimens (low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcome of total bleeding events, prophylaxis with a twice-weekly regimen of FIX likely results in reduced total bleeds compared to a once-a-week regimen of the same dose, mean difference (MD) 11.2 (5.81 to 16.59) (one trial, 10 participants, low-certainty evidence). Transient low-titer anti-FVIII inhibitors were reported in one of the trials. Blood-transmitted infections were not identified. Other adverse events reported include hypersensitivity, oedema, and weight gain. These were, however, rare and unrelated to study drugs (very low-certainty evidence). Comparison of prophylactic and on-demand regimens Four of the trials (258 participants) had arms that compared prophylaxis to on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis may result in a large decrease in the number of joint bleeds compared to on-demand treatment, MD -30.34 (95% CI -46.95 to -13.73) (two trials, 164 participants, low-certainty evidence). One of these trials (84 participants) also reported the long-term effects of prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy showing improved joint function, quality of life, and pain; but no differences between groups in joint structure when assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In one trial (84 participants) validated measures for joint health and pain assessment showed that prophylaxis likely improves joint health compared to an on-demand regimen with an estimated change difference of 0.94 points (95% CI 0.23 to 1.65) and improves total pain scores, MD -17.20 (95% CI -27.48 to -6.92 (moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials (131 participants) reported that prophylaxis likely results in a slight increase in adverse events, risk ratio 1.71 (1.24 to 2.37) (moderate-certainty evidence). No inhibitor development and blood-transmitted infections were identified. Overall, the certainty of the body of evidence was judged to be low because of different types of bias that could have altered the effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from RCTs that prophylaxis, as compared to on-demand treatment, may reduce bleeding frequency in previously-treated people with hemophilia. Prophylaxis may also improve joint function, pain and quality of life, even though this does not translate into a detectable improvement of articular damage when assessed by MRI. When comparing two different prophylaxis regimens, no significant differences in terms of protection from bleeding were found. Dose optimization could, however, result in improved efficacy. Given the heterogeneity of the data, pooled estimates were not obtained for most comparisons. Well-designed RCTs and prospective observational controlled studies with standardised definitions and measurements are needed to establish the optimal and most cost-effective treatment regimens.

Rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with inherited severe hemophilia.

Hemophilia A and B are inherited coagulation disorders characterized by a reduced or absent level of factor VIII or factor IX respectively. The severe form is characterized by a factor level less than 0.01 international units (IU) per milliliter. The development of inhibitors in hemophilia is the main complication of treatment, because the presence of these antibodies, reduces or even nullifies the efficacy of replacement therapy, making it very difficult to control the bleeding. People with inhibitors continue to have significantly higher risks of morbidity and mortality, with considerable treatment costs. Given the wide 'off-label' use of rituximab for treating people with hemophilia and inhibitors, its efficacy and safety need to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To assess the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with inherited severe hemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, complied from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and also searched for ongoing or unpublished studies. We also undertook further searches of other bibliographic databases and trial registries. Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 19 March 2020. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia. No randomized controlled trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. No randomized controlled trials on rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia were identified. We were unable to identify any relevant trials on the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia. The research evidence available is from case reports and case series. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab for this condition. However, prior to the publication of any possible future randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis of case reports and case series may provide some evidence.

Gene therapy for haemophilia.

Haemophilia is a genetic disorder characterized by spontaneous or provoked, often uncontrolled, bleeding into joints, muscles and other soft tissues. Current methods of treatment are expensive, challenging and involve regular administration of clotting factors. Gene therapy for haemophilia is a curative treatment modality currently under investigation. This is an update of a published Cochrane Review. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for treating people with haemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 17 April 2020. Eligible trials include randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, including controlled clinical trials comparing gene therapy (with or without standard treatment) with standard treatment (factor replacement) or other 'curative' treatment such as stem cell transplantation for individuals with haemophilia A or B of all ages who do not have inhibitors to factor VIII or IX. No trials of gene therapy for haemophilia matching the inclusion criteria were identified. No trials of gene therapy for haemophilia matching the inclusion criteria were identified. No randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. Thus, we are unable to determine the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for haemophilia. Gene therapy for haemophilia is still in clinical investigation and there is a need for well-designed clinical trials to assess the long-term feasibility, success and risks of gene therapy for people with haemophilia.

Psychological interventions for people with hemophilia.

Psychological interventions for people with hemophilia.

Antifibrinolytic therapy for preventing oral bleeding in patients with haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions.

Minor oral surgery or dental extractions (oral or dental procedures) are widely performed and can be complicated by hazardous oral bleeding, especially in people with an inherited bleeding disorder such as haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease (VWD). The amount and severity of singular bleedings depend on disease-related factors, such as the severity of the haemophilia, both local and systemic patient factors (such as periodontal inflammation, vasculopathy or platelet dysfunction) and intervention-related factors (such as the type and number of teeth extracted or the dimension of the wound surface). Similar to local haemostatic measures and suturing, antifibrinolytic therapy is a cheap, safe and potentially effective treatment to prevent bleeding complications in individuals with bleeding disorders undergoing oral or dental procedures. However, a systematic review of trials reporting outcomes after oral surgery or a dental procedure in people with an inherited bleeding disorder, with or without, the use of antifibrinolytic agents has not been performed to date. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. Primarily, we aim to assess the efficacy of antifibrinolytic agents to prevent bleeding complications in people with haemophilia or VWD undergoing oral or dental procedures.Secondary objectives are to assess if antifibrinolytic agents can replace or reduce the need for clotting factor concentrate therapy in people with haemophilia or VWD and to establish the effects of these agents on bleeding in oral or dental procedures for each of these patient populations. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), of MEDLINE and from handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We additionally searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library. Additional searches were performed in ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Date of last search of the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 01 March 2019. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people with haemophilia or VWD undergoing oral or dental procedures using antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA)) to prevent perioperative bleeding compared to no intervention or usual care with or without placebo. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all identified articles. Full texts were obtained for potentially relevant abstracts and two authors independently assessed these for inclusion based on the selection criteria. A third author verified trial eligibility. Two authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using standardised forms. While there were no eligible trials in people with VWD identified, two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (total of 59 participants) in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction were included. One trial of tranexamic acid published in 1972 included 28 participants with mild, moderate or severe haemophilia A and B and one of EACA published in 1971 included 31 people with haemophilia with factor VIII or factor IX levels less than 15%. Overall, the two included trials showed a beneficial effect of tranexamic acid and EACA, administered systemically, in reducing the number of bleedings, the amount of blood loss and the need for therapeutic clotting factor concentrates. Regarding postoperative bleeding, the tranexamic acid trial showed a risk difference (RD) of -0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.93 to - 0.36) and the EACA trial a RD of -0.50 (95% CI 0.77 to -0.22). The combined RD of both trials was -0.57 (95% CI -0.76 to -0.37), with the quality of the evidence (GRADE) for this outcome is rated as moderate. Side effects occurred once and required stopping EACA (combined RD of -0.03 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.13). There was heterogeneity between the two trials regarding the proportion of people with severe haemophilia included, the concomitant standard therapy and fibrinolytic agent treatment regimens used. We cannot exclude that a selection bias has occurred in the EACA trial, but overall the risk of bias appeared to be low for both trials. Despite the discovery of a beneficial effect of systemically administered tranexamic acid and EACA in preventing postoperative bleeding in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction, the limited number of randomised controlled trials identified, in combination with the small sample sizes and heterogeneity regarding standard therapy and treatment regimens between the two trials, do not allow us to conclude definite efficacy of antifibrinolytic therapy in oral or dental procedures in people with haemophilia. No trials were identified in people with VWD.

Bypassing agent prophylaxis in people with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors.

People with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors are at high risk of bleeding complications. Infusion of bypassing agents, such as recombinant activated FVII (rFVIIa) and plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrate, are suggested as alternative therapies to factor VIII (haemophilia A) or IX (haemophilia B) for individuals who no longer respond to these treatments because they develop inhibitory antibodies. The ultimate goal of treatment is to preserve the individual's joints, otherwise destroyed by recurrent bleeds. To assess the effects of bypassing agent prophylaxis to prevent bleeding in people with hemophilia A or B and inhibitors. We searched for relevant studies from the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched trial registries (16 February 2017) and bibliographic references of retrieved studies were reviewed for potential articles to be included in the review.Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Coagulopathies Trials Register: 12 December 2016. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled studies (cross-over or parallel design) evaluating the effect of prophylaxis treatment with bypassing agents compared with on-demand treatment, or studies evaluating the effects of high-dose compared with low-dose prophylaxis in males of any age with hemophilia with inhibitors. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias according to standard Cochrane criteria. They assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. We included four randomized studies (duration 7 to 15 months) involving 116 males. Risk of bias was judged to be high in two studies due to the open-label study design and in one study due to attrition bias.Two studies compared on-demand treatment to prophylaxis with bypassing agents. In one study (34 males) prophylaxis significantly reduced mean overall bleeding rates, MD - 7.27 (95% CI -9.92 to -4.62) (low quality evidence), mean number of overall bleeding events per month, MD -1.10 (95% CI -1.54 to -0.66), mean number of hemarthrosis, MD -6.60 (95% CI -9.32 to -3.88) (low quality evidence) and mean number of joints that had hemarthrosis, MD -0.90 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.44). The meta-analysis did not conclusively demonstrate significant benefit of prophylaxis on health-related quality of life as measured by Haem-A-QoL score, EQ-5D total score and utility score, EQ-5D VAS and SF-36 physical summary and mental summary score (low quality evidence for all health-related quality of life analyses).The remaining two studies compared dose regimens. The results from one study (22 males) did not conclusively demonstrate benefit or harm of high-dose versus low-dose recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) as a prophylaxis for overall bleeding rate, MD -0.82 (95% CI -2.27 to 0.63) (moderate quality evidence), target joint bleeding rate, MD -3.20 (95% CI -7.23 to 0.83) (moderate quality evidence) and serious adverse events, RR 9.00 (95% CI, 0.54 to 149.50) (moderate quality evidence).The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low due to imprecision from limited information provided by studies with small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data in one study. The evidence suggests that prophylaxis with bypassing agents may be effective in reducing bleeding in males with hemophilia with inhibitors. However, there is a lack of evidence for the superiority of one agent over the other or for the optimum dosage regimen. Further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylaxis treatment on health-related quality of life, as well as the effects of dose of bypassing agents on the outcomes.

Rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with inherited severe hemophilia.

Hemophilia A and B are inherited coagulation disorders characterized by a reduced or absent level of factor VIII or factor IX respectively. The severe form is characterized by a factor level less than 0.01 international units (IU) per milliliter. The development of inhibitors in hemophilia is the main complication of treatment, because the presence of these antibodies, reduces or even nullifies the efficacy of replacement therapy, making it very difficult to control the bleeding. People with inhibitors continue to have significantly higher risks of morbidity and mortality, with considerable treatment costs. Given the wide 'off-label' use of rituximab for treating people with hemophilia and inhibitors, its efficacy and safety need to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To assess the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with inherited severe hemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, complied from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and also searched for ongoing or unpublished studies. We also undertook further searches of other bibliographic databases and trial registries.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 16 February 2017. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia. No randomized controlled trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. No randomized controlled trials on rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia were identified. We were unable to identify any relevant trials on the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia. The research evidence available is from case reports and case series. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab for this condition. However, prior to the publication of any possible future randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis of case reports and case series may provide some evidence.

Gene therapy for haemophilia.

Haemophilia is a genetic disorder characterized by spontaneous or provoked, often uncontrolled, bleeding into joints, muscles and other soft tissues. Current methods of treatment are expensive, challenging and involve regular administration of clotting factors. Gene therapy has recently been prompted as a curative treatment modality. This is an update of a published Cochrane Review. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for treating people with haemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 18 August 2016. Eligible trials include randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, including controlled clinical trials comparing gene therapy (with or without standard treatment) with standard treatment (factor replacement) or other 'curative' treatment such as stem cell transplantation for individuals with haemophilia A or B of all ages who do not have inhibitors to factor VIII or IX. No trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were found. No trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. No randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. Thus, we are unable to determine the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for haemophilia. Gene therapy for haemophilia is still in its nascent stages and there is a need for well-designed clinical trials to assess the long-term feasibility, success and risks of gene therapy for people with haemophilia.

Exercise for haemophilia.

Haemophilia is a bleeding disorder associated with haemorrhaging into joints and muscles. Exercise is often used to aid recovery after bleeds, and to improve joint function in the presence of arthropathy. Our objective was to systematically review the available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of exercise for people with haemophilia. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register and electronic databases PubMed, OVID-Embase, and CINAHL. We hand searched abstracts from congresses of the World Federation of Hemophilia and the European Hematology Association, trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles.Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 14 December 2016. Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing any exercise intervention considered relevant in haemophilia management including supervised, unsupervised, aquatic, strengthening, aerobic or cardiovascular, stretching, proprioceptive and balance training exercise programs in males of any age with haemophilia A or B of any severity (those with co-morbidities were not excluded). Two authors reviewed the identified abstracts to determine their eligibility. For studies meeting the inclusion criteria, full articles were obtained. The two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. The authors contacted study investigators to obtain any missing data. Eight studies were included, which represented 233 males with all severities of haemophilia A and B, ranging in age from eight years to 49 years. Study duration ranged from four to 12 weeks. Exercise interventions varied greatly and included resistance exercises, isometric exercises, bicycle ergometry, treadmill walking and hydrotherapy; therefore, comparison between studies was difficult.None of the studies measured or reported adverse effects from the interventions. None of the studies reported outcomes regarding bleed frequency, quality of life or aerobic activity. Overall risk of bias across all studies was assessed as unclear.Very few studies provided sufficient information for comparison. None of the studies reported data that favoured the control group. One study reported that six weeks of resistance training improved joint health status (Colorado score) compared to controls. The addition of pulsed electromagnetic fields also improved ankle scores compared to exercises alone, but this was not seen in the elbows or knees.Two studies reported statistically significant improvements in pain intensity after exercise interventions compared to controls. Hydrotherapy exercises produced significant decreases in pain compared to controls and land-based exercise groups.Two studies found improvement in joint motion in the exercise group compared to controls. One study compared land- and water-based exercises; there was no difference in the range of motion between the two groups; however, the water-based exercise group did show improvement over the control group.One study, comparing joint traction and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for the elbow to a control group, showed no differences in biceps girth or strength after 12 weeks of intervention.Some studies reported comparisons between interventions. In one study, treadmill training significantly improved balance in children compared to bicycle ergometry. Another study added partial weight bearing exercises to quadriceps exercises and showed improved walking tolerance.Four studies evaluated quadriceps or hamstring strength (or both). The addition of bicycle ergometry and exercises with weights was more effective than static exercises and treadmill walking for strengthening knee flexors and extensors. Partial weight-bearing exercises through range were more effective than static and short arc exercises for improving knee extensor strength. The addition of treadmill walking to ultrasound, stretching and strengthening exercises showed increased peak torque of knee flexors and extensors and decrease in knee effusion.The results should be interpreted with caution due to the quality of evidence (GRADE) as outlined in the summary of findings tables, which demonstrates that all but one of the outcomes assessed were rated as low or very low due to the small sample sizes and potential bias. These results must be considered with caution. There is a lack of confidence in the results due to the small number of included studies and the inability to pool the results due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures. Most exercise interventions produced improvement in one or more of the measured outcomes including pain, range of motion, strength and walking tolerance. Hydrotherapy may be more effective than land exercises for pain relief in adults. Functional exercises such as treadmill walking and partial weight bearing exercises seem to be more effective than static or short arc exercises for improving muscle strength. These findings are consistent with the many non-controlled intervention reports in the haemophilia literature. No adverse effects were reported as a result of any of the interventions. However, some groups used prophylactic factor prior to exercise and other groups studied only subjects with moderate haemophilia. Therefore, the safety of these techniques for persons with severe haemophilia remains unclear.

Antifibrinolytic therapy for preventing oral bleeding in patients with haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions.

Minor oral surgery or dental extractions (oral or dental procedures) are widely performed and can be complicated by hazardous oral bleeding, especially in people with an inherited bleeding disorder such as haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease. The amount and severity of singular bleedings depend on disease-related factors, such as the severity of the haemophilia, both local and systemic patient factors (such as periodontal inflammation, vasculopathy or platelet dysfunction) and intervention-related factors (such as the type and number of teeth extracted or the dimension of the wound surface). Similar to local haemostatic measures and suturing, antifibrinolytic therapy is a cheap, safe and potentially effective treatment to prevent bleeding complications in individuals with bleeding disorders undergoing oral or dental procedures. However, a systematic review of trials reporting outcomes after oral surgery or a dental procedure in people with an inherited bleeding disorder, with or without, the use of antifibrinolytic agents has not been performed to date. The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of local or systemic use of antifibrinolytic agents to prevent bleeding complications in people with haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease undergoing oral or dental procedures. Secondary objectives were to assess if antifibrinolytic agents can replace or reduce the need for clotting factor concentrate therapy in people with haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease and to further establish the effects of these agents on bleeding in oral or dental procedures for each of these populations. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), of MEDLINE and from handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We additionally searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library. Additional searches were performed in ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Date of last search of the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 14 December 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people with haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease undergoing oral or dental procedures using antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid) to prevent perioperative bleeding compared to no intervention or usual care with or without placebo. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all identified articles. Full texts were obtained for potentially relevant abstracts and two authors independently assessed these for inclusion based on the selection criteria. A third author verified trial eligibility. Two authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using standardized forms. While there were no eligible trials in people with Von Willebrand disease identified, two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (total of 59 participants) in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction were included. One trial of tranexamic acid published in 1972 included 28 participants with mild, moderate or severe haemophilia A and B and one of epsilon aminocaproic acid published in 1971 included 31 people with haemophilia with factor VIII or factor IX levels less than 15%. Overall, the two included trials showed a beneficial effect of tranexamic acid and EACA, administered systemically, in reducing the number of bleedings, the amount of blood loss and the need for therapeutic clotting factor concentrates. Regarding postoperative bleeding, the tranexamic acid trial showed a risk difference of -0.64 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to - 0.36) and the EACA trial a risk difference of -0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to -0.22). The combined risk difference of both trials was -0.57 (95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.37), with the quality of the evidence (GRADE) for this outcome is rated as moderate. Side effects occurred once and required stopping epsilon aminocaproic acid (combined risk difference of -0.03 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.13). There was heterogeneity between the two trials regarding the proportion of people with severe haemophilia included, the concomitant standard therapy and fibrinolytic agent treatment regimens used. We cannot exclude that a selection bias has occurred in the epsilon aminocaproic acid trial, but overall the risk of bias appeared to be low for both trials. Despite the discovery of a beneficial effect of systemically administered tranexamic acid and epsilon aminocaproic acid in preventing postoperative bleeding in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction, the limited number of randomised controlled trials identified, in combination with the small sample sizes and heterogeneity regarding standard therapy and treatment regimens between the two trials, do not allow us to conclude definite efficacy of antifibrinolytic therapy in oral or dental procedures in people with haemophilia. No trials were identified in people with Von Willebrand disease.

Congenital bleeding disorders and dental surgery.

Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register. This register is updated regularly from the Cochrane Library weekly searches of Medline and prospective hand-searching of the journal, Haemophilia. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for possible ongoing trials. Two reviewers independently selected studies - randomised and quasi-randomised studies were considered. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted. Three RCTs and one quasi-RCT involving a total of 112 patients were included. Two of the trials (one RCT, one quasi-RCT) involving a total of 59 people were conducted in patients undergoing dental extractions. They compared the use of a different type (tranexamic acid or epsilon-aminocaproic acid) and regimen of antifibrinolytic agents as haemostatic support to the initial replacement treatment. They found a reduction of blood loss and requirement of post-operative replacement treatment in people receiving antifibrinolytic agents compared with placebo. The need for re-intervention was not reported by either trial. There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to assess the most effective and safe haemostatic treatment to prevent bleeding in people with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders undergoing surgical procedures. Ideally large, adequately powered and well-designed randomised controlled trials would be needed, in particular to address the cost-effectiveness of such demanding treatments in the light of the increasing present economic constraints, and to explore the new challenge of ageing patients with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders. However, performing such trials is always a complex task in this setting and presently does not appear to be a clinical and research priority. Indeed, major and minor surgeries are effectively and safely performed in these individuals in clinical practice, with the numerous national and international recommendations and guidelines providing regimens for treatment in this setting mainly based on data from observational, uncontrolled studies.

Rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with inherited severe hemophilia.

Hemophilia A and B are inherited coagulation disorders characterized by a reduced or absent level of factor VIII or factor IX respectively. The severe form is characterized by a factor level less than 0.01 international units (IU) per milliliter. The development of inhibitors in hemophilia is the main complication of treatment, because the presence of these antibodies, reduces or even nullifies the efficacy of replacement therapy, making it very difficult to control the bleeding. People with inhibitors continue to have significantly higher risks of morbidity and mortality, with considerable treatment costs. Given the wide 'off-label' use of rituximab for treating people with hemophilia and inhibitors, its efficacy and safety need to be evaluated. To assess the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with inherited severe hemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, complied from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and also searched for ongoing or unpublished studies.Date of last search: 27 January 2015. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia. No randomized controlled trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. No randomized controlled trials on rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia were identified. We were unable to identify any relevant trials on the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia. The research evidence available is from case reports and case series. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab for this condition. However, prior to the publication of any possible future randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis of case reports and case series may provide some evidence.

Treatment for preventing bleeding in people with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders undergoing surgery.

In people with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders undergoing surgical interventions, haemostatic treatment is needed in order to correct the underlying coagulation abnormalities and minimise the bleeding risk. This treatment varies according to the specific haemostatic defect, its severity and the type of surgical procedure. The aim of treatment is to ensure adequate haemostatic coverage for as long as the bleeding risk persists and until wound healing is complete. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different haemostatic regimens (type, dose and duration, modality of administration and target haemostatic levels) administered in people with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders for preventing bleeding complications during and after surgical procedures. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of the last search: 20 November 2014. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any hemostatic treatment regimen to no treatment or to another active regimen in children and adults with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders undergoing any surgical intervention. Two authors independently assessed trials (eligibility and risks of bias) and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed on available and relevant data. Of the 16 identified trials, four (112 participants) were eligible for inclusion.Two trials evaluated 59 people with haemophilia A and B undergoing 63 dental extractions. Trials compared the use of a different type (tranexamic acid or epsilon-aminocaproic acid) and regimen of antifibrinolytic agents as haemostatic support to the initial replacement treatment. Neither trial specifically addressed mortality (one of this review's primary outcomes); however, in the frame of safety assessments, no fatal adverse events were reported. The second primary outcome of blood loss was assessed after surgery and these trials showed the reduction of blood loss and requirement of post-operative replacement treatment in people receiving antifibrinolytic agents compared with placebo. The remaining primary outcome of need for re-intervention was not reported by either trial.Two trials reported on 53 people with haemophilia A and B with inhibitors treated with different regimens of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) for haemostatic coverage of 33 major and 20 minor surgical interventions. Neither of the included trials specifically addressed any of the review's primary outcomes (mortality, blood loss and need for re-intervention). In one trial a high-dose rFVIIa regimen (90 μg/kg) was compared with a low-dose regimen (35 μg/kg); the higher dose showed increased haemostatic efficacy, in particular in major surgery, with shorter duration of treatment, similar total dose of rFVIIa administered and similar safety levels. In the second trial, bolus infusion and continuous infusion of rFVIIa were compared, showing similar haemostatic efficacy, duration of treatment and safety. There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to assess the most effective and safe haemostatic treatment to prevent bleeding in people with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders undergoing surgical procedures. Ideally large, adequately powered, and well-designed randomised controlled trials would be needed, in particular to address the cost-effectiveness of such demanding treatments in the light of the increasing present economic constraints, and to explore the new challenge of ageing patients with haemophilia or other congenital bleeding disorders. However, performing such trials is always a complex task in this setting and presently does not appear to be a clinical and research priority. Indeed, major and minor surgeries are effectively and safely performed in these individuals in clinical practice, with the numerous national and international recommendations and guidelines providing regimens for treatment in this setting mainly based on data from observational, uncontrolled studies.

Gene therapy for haemophilia.

Haemophilia is a genetic disorder which is characterized by spontaneous or provoked, often uncontrolled, bleeding into joints, muscles and other soft tissues. Current methods of treatment are expensive, challenging and involve regular administration of clotting factors. Gene therapy has recently been prompted as a curative treatment modality. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for treating people with haemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 06 November 2014. Eligible trials included randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, including controlled clinical trials comparing gene therapy (with or without standard treatment) with standard treatment (factor replacement) or other 'curative' treatment such as stem cell transplantation individuals with haemophilia A or B of all ages who do not have inhibitors to factor VIII or IX. No trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were found. No trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. No randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. Thus, we are unable to determine the effects of gene therapy for haemophilia. Gene therapy for haemophilia is still in its nascent stages and there is a need for well-designed clinical trials to assess the long-term feasibility, success and risks of gene therapy for people with haemophilia.

Immune tolerance induction for treating inhibitors in people with congenital haemophilia A or B.

The occurrence of factor inhibitory antibodies, or inhibitors, is a significant complication in the care of individuals with congenital haemophilia A or B. Currently, immune tolerance induction is the only known intervention to successfully eradicate inhibitors. However, ideal dosing regimens, and the comparative safety and efficacy of different immune tolerance induction regimens have not yet been established. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of immune tolerance induction (different protocols of this therapy versus each other, or versus only bypassing agents) for treating inhibitors in people with congenital haemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched: MEDLINE (from 1946 to 15 July 2013); Embase (from 1980 to 15 July 2013) via the OVID platform; CINAHL (from conception to 15 July 2013); and ClinicalTrials.gov (most recent search: 15 July 2013). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Randomised controlled trials comparing either different immune tolerance induction regimens or immune tolerance induction versus only bypassing therapy for the eradication of factor inhibitory antibodies in patients with congenital haemophilia A or B. Two review authors independently completed data collection, extraction and assessment of the risk of bias of trials. One methodologically sound randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria and was included in the review. One further randomised controlled trial has been recently stopped, but it has not yet been reported.The included multinational trial randomised 115 paediatric participants with severe haemophilia A and high-responding inhibitors, for whom this was the first attempt at immune tolerance induction, to receive either a low dose (50 IU/kg of factor VIII concentrate three times per week) or a high dose (200 IU/kg of factor VIII daily). Although, there was no statistically significant difference in the success of immune tolerance induction between treatment arms, the confidence intervals were too wide to infer no effect: 24 out of 58 participants (46.6%) in the low-dose group and 22 out of 57 (38.6%) in the high-dose group experiencing full tolerance, risk ratio 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of infection was not statistically different between groups, but again confidence intervals were too wide. Of those patients who had a central venous catheter device, 19 out of 47 participants (40.4%) in the low-dose arm had 69 infections, and 22 out of 52 participants (42.3%) in the high-dose arm had 55 infections, risk ratio 0.96 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.53) (moderate quality evidence). However, participants in the low-dose immune tolerance induction group experienced significantly more bleeding episodes (50 out of 58 participants (86.2%) experienced one or more bleeding events) than those in the high-dose group (36 out of 57 participants (63.1%) experienced one or more bleeding events), risk ratio 1.36 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.71) (low quality evidence). One factor VIII reaction, one incidence of trauma and 13 incidences of needing to insert or remove the catheter were reported as trial-related serious adverse events; however, the treatment group where these events occurred was not specified. No incidence of nephrotic syndrome was reported. We did not find any randomised controlled trial-based comparison of immune tolerance induction with alternate treatment schemes (i.e. bypassing agents for bleeding only). In a single randomised trial, there were no significant differences in the immune tolerance induction success rate between different dosing regimens, which may have been due to imprecision of the estimate. There is low-quality evidence to suggest that high-dose immune tolerance induction may induce tolerance more quickly which is associated with fewer bleeding complications. The choice of immune tolerance induction regimen should be considered individually for each case, until further research provides additional evidence.

Clotting factor concentrates given to prevent bleeding and bleeding-related complications in people with hemophilia A or B

The hallmark of severe hemophilia is recurrent bleeding into joints and soft tissues with progressive joint damage, notwithstanding on-demand treatment. Prophylaxis has long been used but not universally adopted because of medical, psychosocial, and cost controversies. To determine the effectiveness of clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis in the management of people with hemophilia A or B. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register. In addition, we searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL), handsearched relevant journals and abstract books and reference lists of relevant articles.Last search of Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 07 April 2011. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating people with severe hemophilia A or hemophilia B receiving prophylactic clotting factor concentrates. Two authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Six studies (including 142 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Two compared three-times-a-week prophylactic administration with on-demand treatment in children with hemophilia. Pooled results from these two studies showed a rate ratio of 0.30 (95% confidence interval; 0.12 to 0.76) for all bleedings and 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.63) for joint bleedings favouring prophylaxis. Results on the number of patients with preserved joints after three to seven years of follow-up were not pooled due to significant heterogeneity. Three of the remaining four studies evaluated hemophilia A; one showed a statistically significant decrease in frequency of joint bleeds with prophylaxis compared to placebo, with a rate difference of -10.73 (95% confidence interval -16.55 to -4.91) bleeds per year. Two studies compared two prophylaxis regimens, failing to demonstrate an advantage of one regimen over the other in terms of bleeding frequency. The fourth study evaluated hemophilia B and showed fewer joint bleeds with weekly (15 IU/kg) versus bi-weekly (7.5 IU/kg) prophylaxis, rate difference -3.30 (95% confidence interval -5.50 to -1.10) bleeds per year. Non-significant increases in both inhibitor and infectious complications were observed in patients on prophylaxis, which occurred more often when using long-term venous access. There is strong evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational trials that prophylaxis preserves joint function in children with hemophilia as compared to on-demand treatment. There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to confirm the observational evidence that prophylaxis decreases bleeding and related complications in patients with existing joint damage. Well-designed randomised controlled trials and prospective observational controlled studies are needed to establish the best prophylactic regimen and to assess the effectiveness of prophylactic clotting factor concentrates in adult patients.