Overall, prophylaxis was initiated 3 years earlier in the high-dose regimen (median age 2 years vs. 5 years). Consequently, dosages for high-dose prophylaxis were consistently higher. In addition, 31% of patients in the intermediate-dose group showed some interruptions of prophylaxis, vs. none in the high-dose MG-132 supplier group. At evaluation, the median prophylactic regimen was 3x 13 IU/kg for the Dutch patients, vs. 3x 27 IU/kg for the Swedish patients. This resulted in a mean annual consumption of 4400 IU/kg (sd 1200) in the high-dose group vs. 1900 IU/kg (sd 1000) in the intermediate-dose
group. Outcome between groups in the first comparative study [16] is shown in Table 1. First, it must be noted that the Swedish patients were younger at evaluation. find more This was due to the fact that the Swedish had not performed routine radiological evaluation over the last few years, therefore, P-values for all comparisons were calculated using an age-adjusted analysis. It is clear that patients in the high-dose
group had a slightly but significantly lower number of annual joint bleeds. And although the scores for physical examination (using the clinical score by Gilbert et al. [19]) and radiological arthropathy (Pettersson score [18,20]) appeared lower in the high-dose group, the age-adjusted analysis only showed statistical significance for the very young patients born in the 1980s. The standard study design for comparing treatment strategies is the randomized controlled trial. Unfortunately, this design is not feasible in a rare disease, with a treatment that is constantly adjusted and requires a minimum follow-up
of several decades to appreciate the effects of infrequent bleeding on joint outcome [20]. Although this first comparative study was a retrospective observation of two birth cohorts, it was expected to give valid results as treatment allocation was determined by the standard provision of country of residence only. By using routinely MCE available data, no patients were excluded. The Pettersson score is an objective outcome parameter that was routinely used in both centres, but assessed by a single radiologist at each centre. The inter-observer reproducibility of the Pettersson score has been established [21]. Although widely used, the reproducibility of the Gilbert score has never been established, and it appears less sensitive to joint changes than the Pettersson score. In addition to these technical aspects concerning the comparison, the clinical impression was that these patients were in excellent condition, but that follow-up was too short to fully appreciate the results of the different treatment regimens.