HJHS 2.1 and HEAD-US assessment in the hemophilic joints: How do their findings compare?

: In hemophilic patients methods are needed to better diagnose joint damage early, so that treatments can be adjusted to slow the progression of hemophilic arthropathy. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between the Hemophilia Joint Health Score version 2.1 (HJHS 2.1) and hemophilia early arthropathy detection with ultrasound (HEAD-US) scales, as well as each of their individual items, to better understand the value each provides on the joint condition of patients with hemophilia. The study included data from patients with hemophilia older than 16 years of age, who attended a routine check-up. HJHS 2.1 and HEAD-US assessments were performed on the elbows, knees and ankles. We studied the correlations and agreements between the two scales and analyzed the relationship between the various items of the HJHS 2.1 (inflammation, duration, atrophy, crepitation, flexion deficit, extension deficit, pain, strength, gait) and HEAD-US (synovitis, cartilage and bone). The study included 203 joints from 66 patients with hemophilia (mean age, 34 years). We found a good correlation between the two scales (r = 0.717). However, HJHS 2.1 revealed only 54% of the cases with synovitis and 75% of the cases with osteochondral damage. HEAD-US detected several relevant physical and functional aspects in less than 53% of the cases. HJHS 2.1 and HEAD-US provide complementary data on joint disease in adults with hemophilia; both assessments should therefore, be made available. HEAD-US presented the added value of detecting early joint changes (synovitis and osteochondral damage), while HJHS 2.1 showed the added value of detecting relevant physical and functional changes.

[1]  Aritra Guha,et al.  Joint scores in hemophilic arthropathy in children: Developing country perspectives. , 2019, European journal of rheumatology.

[2]  E. Rodríguez‐Merchán Serological biomarkers in hemophilic arthropathy: Can they be used to monitor bleeding and ongoing progression of blood-induced joint disease in patients with hemophilia? , 2019, Blood reviews.

[3]  Ž. Snoj,et al.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US): A Comparative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Study , 2019, Radiology and oncology.

[4]  A. Iorio,et al.  Hemophilia trials in the twenty‐first century: Defining patient important outcomes , 2019, Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis.

[5]  V. Blanchette,et al.  Measurement of joint health in persons with haemophilia: A systematic review of the measurement properties of haemophilia‐specific instruments , 2018, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[6]  W. Mali,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care ultrasound for evaluation of early blood‐induced joint changes: Comparison with MRI , 2018, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[7]  C. Négrier,et al.  Evaluation of early musculoskeletal disease in patients with haemophilia: results from an expert consensus , 2018, Blood coagulation & fibrinolysis : an international journal in haemostasis and thrombosis.

[8]  J. O’Hara,et al.  The impact of severe haemophilia and the presence of target joints on health-related quality-of-life , 2018, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[9]  D. Stephensen,et al.  Physiotherapist inter‐rater reliability of the Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound protocol , 2018, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[10]  V. Arruda,et al.  Faculty Opinions recommendation of Improved joint health in subjects with severe haemophilia A treated prophylactically with recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein. , 2018 .

[11]  E. Chang,et al.  Musculoskeletal ultrasound for intra‐articular bleed detection: a highly sensitive imaging modality compared with conventional magnetic resonance imaging , 2018, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[12]  V. Jiménez‐Yuste,et al.  The value of HEAD-US system in detecting subclinical abnormalities in joints of patients with hemophilia , 2018, Expert review of hematology.

[13]  R. Yang,et al.  [Clinical application and optimization of HEAD-US quantitative ultrasound assessment scale for hemophilic arthropathy]. , 2018, Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi.

[14]  J. O’Hara,et al.  The relationship between target joints and direct resource use in severe haemophilia , 2018, Health Economics Review.

[15]  J. Dumont,et al.  Improved joint health in subjects with severe haemophilia A treated prophylactically with recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein , 2018, Haemophilia.

[16]  S. Airaldi,et al.  Ultrasound for Early Detection of Joint Disease in Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy , 2017, Journal of clinical medicine.

[17]  M. Pisters,et al.  Comparing findings of routine Haemophilia Joint Health Score and Haemophlia Early Arthropathy Detection with UltraSound assessments in adults with haemophilia , 2017, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[18]  P. Babyn,et al.  Choosing outcome assessment tools in haemophilia care and research: a multidisciplinary perspective , 2017, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[19]  F. Lafeber,et al.  Pathophysiology of hemophilic arthropathy and potential targets for therapy , 2017, Pharmacological research.

[20]  V. Blanchette,et al.  Correlating clinical and radiological assessment of joints in haemophilia: results of a cross sectional study , 2016, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[21]  E. Berntorp Haemophilia treatment in 2030 , 2016, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[22]  C. Altisent,et al.  Early prophylaxis in children with severe haemophilia A: clinical and ultrasound imaging outcomes , 2016, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[23]  A. Tagliafico,et al.  Point‐of‐care ultrasound in haemophilic arthropathy: will the HEAD‐US system supplement or replace physical examination? , 2016, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[24]  I. C. Schaaf,et al.  Value of routine ultrasound in detecting early joint changes in children with haemophilia using the ‘Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with UltraSound’ protocol , 2016, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[25]  R. Ljung,et al.  Definitions in hemophilia: communication from the SSC of the ISTH , 2014, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[26]  J. Sun,et al.  Chinese Hemophilia Joint Health Score 2.1 reliability study , 2014, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[27]  K. Fischer,et al.  Using the Haemophilia Joint Health Score for assessment of teenagers and young adults: exploring reliability and validity , 2013, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[28]  M. Morfini,et al.  Development and definition of a simplified scanning procedure and scoring method for Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) , 2013, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[29]  L. Maes,et al.  Results of a cross-sectional study on balance in hearing impaired children , 2012 .

[30]  A. Dunn Pathophysiology, diagnosis and prevention of arthropathy in patients with haemophilia , 2011, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[31]  R. Engelbert,et al.  Validation of a new pediatric joint scoring system from the International Hemophilia Prophylaxis Study Group: Validity of the hemophilia joint health score , 2011, Arthritis care & research.

[32]  M. Gilbert Prophylaxis: musculoskeletal evaluation. , 1993, Seminars in hematology.