Prophylaxis in Hemophilia A Patients with Inhibitors

The development of antibodies to factor VIII is one of the most serious complications of haemophilia treatment. Approximately 30% of patients with severe haemophilia develop neutralizing inhibitors to replacement FVIII. Although most patients with inhibitors do not bleed more frequently than patients without inhibitors, bleeding is more difficult to control and this patients suffer more severe bleeding and have greater morbidity and mortality. Patients with persistent high-titer inhibitor who are not candidates or fail ITI, pose a great challenge to haemophilia management. The efficacy and safety of prophylaxis with bypassing agents in reducing bleeding tendency, has been described in numerous studies. Patients and methods: We report tree adult severe haemophilia A patients, two with persistent high-titre inhibitors and one who failed ITI, on prophylactic treatment after several significant musculoskeletal and life-threatening haemorrhagic episodes (intrabdominal/intramuscular) and pseudotumor haemorrhage. Treatment regimens consisted of APCC (Feiba®) in doses of 60-70UKg-1, 2-3 times per week, according underlying bleeding phenotype. Breakthrough bleeds were treated with either APCC (Feiba®) or rFVIIa (NovoSeven®). Results and Conclusion: There was reduction in total bleeding episodes in two patients (43% to 80%) and one patient remained stable, while receiving prophylaxis. Absence of severe and life threatening bleeding episodes, as well as inpatient stays, contributing to a better quality of life in those patients, was observed. APCC (Feiba®) was well tolerated and no thrombotic events were observed.

Stress-Related Mucosal Disease: Incidence of Bleeding and the Role of Omeprazole in its Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is the severe complication of stress-related mucosal disease in hospitalized patients. In intensive care units (ICU), risk factors are well defined and only mechanical ventilation and coagulopathy proved to be relevant for significant bleeding. On the contrary, in non-ICU settings there is no consensus about this issue. Nevertheless, omeprazole is still widely used in prophylaxis of bleeding. The objective of our study was to evaluate the relevance of stress-related mucosal disease bleeding in patients admitted to an internal medicine ward, and the role of omeprazole in its prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in which we analysed consecutive patients who were admitted to our ward over a year. We recorded demographic characteristics of the patients, potential risk factors for stress-related mucosal disease (clinical data, laboratory, and medication), administration of prophylactic omeprazole, and total cost of this prophylaxis. Patients with active gastrointestinal bleeding on the admission were excluded. We recorded every upper gastrointestinal bleeding event with clinical relevance. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-five patients, mean age 70 years, mean length of stay 9.6+/-7.7 days; 140 (26.2%) patients were treated with 40 mg of omeprazole intravenously, 193 (36.1%) with 20mg of omeprazole orally, and 202 (37.8%) patients had no prophylaxis. There was only one episode (0.2%) of clinically relevant bleeding. CONCLUSION: In patients admitted to an internal medicine ward, incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding as a complication of stress-related mucosal disease is low. We found that there is no advantage in prophylaxis with omeprazole.