Adherence to prophylaxis and bleeding outcome: A multicenter Nigerian study

Background: In Nigeria, low-dose prophylaxis is the standard of care as it reduces bleeding, development of target joints, arthropathy, and improvement of quality of life. Non-adherence or poor adherence can prevent the achievement of these outcomes. The levels and determinants of (non-)adherence among persons with haaemophilia (PWH) in Sub-Saharan Africa have not been evidenced. Objective: To evaluate self-reported adherence among PWH, provide evidence of determinants/predictors of adherence and establish the associations between nonadherence and presence of target joints and annualized bleed rate. Methodology: A cross-sectional survey of 42 participants on low-dose prophylaxis recruited during outpatient appointments in 5 haemophilia treatment centers in Nigeria. We used the validated Haemophilia Regimen Treatment Adherence Scale- Prophylaxis (VERITAS -Pro), 24 questions on six subscales (time, dose, plan, remember, skip, and communicate) questionnaire. The options of VERITAS -Pro were represented in a 5 Likert scale and the possible subscale ranged from 4 points (most adherent) to 20 points (least adherent) and the possible total score ranged from 24 (most adherent) to 120 (least adherent) the cutoff for overall adherence put at > 61 to indicate nonadherence. Information on the presence of target joints, the number of target joints, and annualized bleeding rates were collected from medical files. Results The mean age of the participants was 9.79 (6.29) years, with 96.6% having hemophilia A and 79.3% having target joints. Overall adherence to the prophylaxis regimen was 81.0%. The mean total VERITAS-Pro for the adherent group and the non-adherent group was 37.35 {+/-}9.08 and 63.0{+/-} 6.37, respectively. The mean subscale scores for the adherent group ranged from 0.67 (communication) to 8.68 (planning), while the mean subscale scores range from 1.0 communication to 13.88 (planning) for the nonadherent group. The mean difference of all except the dosing subscale was statistically significant with p<0.05. Only the skipping subscale showed a statistically significant positive correlation with ABR in the non-adherent group p=0.02. Conclusions The findings indicate that adherence was very good, and most were in communication with their treatment centers. The skipping subscale was significantly associated with ABR for the nonadherent group. Interventions aimed at improving adherence are the key to better treatment outcomes. A multicenter study was needed to assess the reason for poor adherence.