The advent of extended half‐life (EHL) recombinant clotting factors and innovative non‐factor replacement therapeutics, such as emicizumab, offers several advantages over existing products for the prophylactic treatment of people living with hemophilia (PwH). These include low annual bleeding rates with less frequent dosing, higher trough plasma concentrations, and a more convenient route of administration. However, increasing use of these therapies poses challenges to clinicians and coagulation laboratories due to the lack of standardized assays for monitoring of hemostatic parameters, and the potential for misinterpretation of test results, which may jeopardize patient safety. Definitive diagnosis of hemophilia and treatment monitoring is reliant on demonstrating factor VIII (FVIII; hemophilia A) or factor IX (FIX; hemophilia B) deficiency using a functional coagulation assay. The most frequently used assays are based on activated partial thromboplastin time, using a one‐stage or two‐stage process. While one‐stage and chromogenic assays have performed well with human‐derived FVIII and FIX and full‐length recombinant products, EHL recombinant factors are heterogeneous in structure and mode of action and therefore show wide variation in activity levels between different one‐stage assays, and between one‐stage and chromogenic assays. In the context of the recommended stepwise approach for laboratory diagnosis of hemophilia, we examine the diagnostic challenges associated with the use of EHL factors and novel non‐factor therapeutics and consider the optimal diagnostic approach in PwH who are receiving these treatments. Ultimately, accurate diagnostic solutions are a pre‐requisite for personalized therapy to minimize treatment burden and improve quality of life in PwH.

With increasing longevity, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in hemophilia patients is expected to increase; however, evidence-based guidelines on management are lacking. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence and management of CVD risk factors in hemophilia patients. A retrospective study of 58 adult hemophilia patients (≥35 years) attending Mayo Comprehensive Hemophilia Center between 1 January 2006 and 15 October 2009 were reviewed. The prevalence of CVD risk factors was hypertension 65.5%, diabetes 10.3%, smoking 12.5% and obesity 19.6%. A total of 31% did not have a lipid profile on record. Management of risk factors included antihypertensive medications in 84.2% and lipid-lowering agents in 12.1%. During their medical evaluation, four of seven active smokers received smoking cessation counseling and four of 11 obese patients received lifestyle modification advice. Eight patients (13.8%) experienced a CVD event: myocardial infarction (MI) (n = 3), coronary artery disease (n = 2), both MI and ischemic stroke (n = 1) and hemorrhagic strokes (n = 2). Only five of eight patients were on low-dose aspirin, of which aspirin was discontinued in one patient after he was diagnosed with hemophilia following a bleeding work-up. Another patient on dual antiplatelet therapy post stent placement developed epistaxis resulting in clopidogrel cessation. Hemophilia patients are at risk for CVD, similar to the general age-matched male population. Screening for CVD risk factors, with preventive dietary and pharmacologic interventions, play a key role in the prevention and long-term management of CVD. Collaborative efforts between primary care providers, cardiologists and hemophilia center specialists remain essential in managing these complex patients.

Summary: Bolus infusion (BI) recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) administration is safe and effective in the surgical management of haemophilia patients with inhibitors but has not been compared directly with continuous infusion (CI). We conducted an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of rFVIIa administered by BI or CI for the surgical management of haemophilia A or B patients with inhibitors to FVIII or FIX. Safety was compared with that of a control group of noninhibitor patients receiving FVIII or FIX concentrates for major surgery. All inhibitor subjects received an initial bolus dose of 90 μg/kg rFVIIa and were then randomly assigned to BI (n=12) or CI (n=12). The BI group received 90 μg/kg rFVIIa every two hours (h) during surgery through day 5, then every four hours for days 6–10. The CI group received 50 μg/kg/h rFVIIa through day 5, then 25 mg/kg/h for days 6–10. The control group (n=12) received FVIII or FIX per institutional protocols. Twenty-two major surgeries included orthopedic procedures on the knee (n=13), hip (n=3), and abdominal/pelvis procedures (n=4). One patient with an autoimmune FVIII inhibitor randomized to the BI arm was excluded from efficacy analysis. Haemostatic efficacy of rFVIIa in each group was comparable: effective in 8/11 and 9/12 subjects in the BI and CI arms, respectively, and ineffective in three subjects in each arm. Serious adverse events were related to continued or increased bleeding. In conclusion, haemostatic efficacy and safety of BI and CI of rFVIIa are comparable for the surgical management of haemophilia subjects with inhibitors.