Clinical and radiological assessment of joints in people with haemophilia in Assam, Northeast India: a cross-sectional study

Bhabani Sankar Dhal; Anupam Dutta; Arijit Das; Dhrubajyoti Borpatragohain; Adity Sharma; Arnav Kashyap

doi:10.2478/jhp-2023-0002

Abstract

Abstract Background

Despite the availability of factor replacement therapy, including prophylaxis, to treat and prevent bleeding, haemophilic arthropathy continues to be the most common complication of haemophilia and significantly impairs the quality of life in people with haemophilia (PwH). Regular periodic assessment of joint status in PwH is essential to identify early arthropathic changes and prevent the development or progression of haemophilic arthropathy. Kinematic and kinetic assessment are preferable and MRI is the gold standard for diagnosing haemophilic arthropathy, but availability is limited in developing countries. HJHS and ultrasound in conjunction with HEAD-US have been shown to effective in assessing changes indicating arthropathy.

Aim

This study is designed to identify which radiological assessment tool(s) works best when integrated with clinical assessment tools to examine joint health in PwH, with the aim of establishing a cheap, effective, multimodal approach to joint assessment in clinical practice in low resource settings which can then help to guide treatment.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study was carried out among PwH attending a clinic in the department of medicine at Assam Medical College and Hospital, Northeast India, over a one-year time period. The elbow, knee and ankle joints of participants were assessed clinically and functionally using HJHS and FISH and radiologically by Pettersson (X-ray) and HEAD-US (ultrasound) scoring. The resulting data was analysed statistically to ascertain correlation between these parameters.

Results

Sixty-seven PwH were enrolled in the study, with a mean age of 21.69±8.24 years (median 21 years); 38 (57.72%) had severe factor deficiency. The majority (71.70%) presented with joint bleeds; 40 (59.70%) had the knee as a target joint, followed by the elbow (11; 16.41%) and ankle (6; 8.95%). Mean ABR (annual bleed rate), AJBR (annual joint bleed rate) and ATJBR (annual target joint bleed rate) values had a positive correlation with increased severity of factor deficiency (p <0.001). FISH score increased with factor activity level; HJHS, HEAD-US and Pettersson scores decreased with factor activity level. Significant positive correlation was established between Pettersson score, age and ABR. The degree of association was greatest between HJHS and HEAD-US at 60.62%; between HJHS and Pettersson it was 57.74%. Statistically significant negative correlation was established between FISH and HEAD-US.

Conclusion

A combined multimodal approach using the HJHS, FISH and HEAD-US scoring systems can provide a cheap, quick, more reliable and accurate option for assessing haemophilic joints, with minimal inter and intra observer reliability. This can support the optimisation of management of joint damage in PwH in resource-constrained settings.

Article

View Full Article

References

1. Bicocchi MP, Migeon BR, Pasino M, et al. Familial nonrandom inactivation linked to the X inactivation centre in heterozygotes manifesting haemophilia A. Eur J Hum Genet 2005; 13(5):635–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201386.
2. Shoukat HMH, Ghous G, Tarar ZI, Shoukat MM, Ajmal N. Skewed inactivation of X chromosome: a cause of hemophilia manifestation in carrier females. Cureus 2020; 12(10): e11216. doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11216.
3. van Galen KPM, d’Oiron R, James P, et al. A new hemophilia carrier nomenclature to define hemophilia in women and girls: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 2021; 19(8): 1883–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.15397.
4. Borhany M, Pahore Z, ul Qadr Z, et al. Bleeding disorders in the tribe: result of consanguineous in breeding. Orphaned J Rare Dis 2010; 5: 23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-5-23.
5. Dutta A, Dutta TS, Dey P. Clinical profile of haemophilia patients of upper Assam – a hospital-based study. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2017; 6(37): 2990–4.
6. Iorio A, Stonebraker JS, Chambost H, et al. Establishing the prevalence and prevalence at birth of hemophilia in males: a meta-analytic approach using national registries. Ann Intern Med 2019; 171(8): 540–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1208.
7. World Federation of Hemophilia. Report on the Annual Global Survey 2020. October 2021. Montréal, Québec: WFH. Available from https://wfh.org/data-collection/#ags (accessed 4 March 2022).
8. Ghosh K, Shukla R. Future of haemophilia research in India. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2020; 36(1): 1–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-017-0872-2.
9. The GUaRDIAN Consortium, Sivasubbu S, Scaria V. Genomics of rare genetic diseases—experiences from India. Hum Genomics 2019; 13: 52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-019-0215-5.
10. Van den Berg HM, de Groot PHG, Fischer K. Phenotypic heterogeneity in severe hemophilia. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 5(1): 151–156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02503.x.
11. Valentino LA, Hakobyan N, Rodriguez N, Hoots WK. Pathogenesis of haemophilic synovitis: experimental studies on blood-induced joint damage. Haemophilia 2007; 13(3): 10–3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2007.01534.x.
12. Roosendaal G, Van Rinsum AC, Vianen ME, Van den Berg HM, Lafeber FP, Bijlsma JW. Haemophilic arthropathy resembles degenerative rather than inflammatory joint disease. Histopathology 1999; 34(2): 144–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.1999.00608.x.
13. Guha A, Rai A, Nandy A, et al. Joint scores in hemophilic arthropathy in children: Developing country perspectives. Eur J Rheumatol 2020; 7(1): 26–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.5152/eurjrheum.2019.19040.
14. Gualtierotti R, Solimeno LP, Peyvandi F. Hemophilic arthropathy: current knowledge and future perspectives. JThromb Haemost 2021; 19(9): 2112–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.15444.
15. Seuser A, Khayat CD, Negrier C, Sabbour A, Heijnen L. Evaluation of early musculoskeletal disease in patients with haemophilia: results from an expert consensus. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2018; 29(6): 509–520. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MBC.0000000000000767.
16. Srivastava A, Santagostino E, Dougall A, et al. WFH Guidelines for the Management of Hemophilia, 3rd edition. Haemophilia 2020; 26(6): 1–158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14046.
17. Di Minno MND, Pasta G, Airaldi S, Zaottini F, Storino A, Cimino E, et al. Ultrasound for early detection of joint disease in patients with hemophilic arthropathy. J Clin Med 2017; 6(8): 77. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm6080077.
18. Choudhary R, Sharma P, Nigam RK, Malik R. Functional Independence Score in haemophilia: A hospital based observational study in a tertiary care center in Central India. J Evid Based Med Healthc 2019; 6(41): 2702–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.18410/jebmh/2019/560.
19. Kavaklı K, Özbek SS, Antmen AB, et al. Impact of the HEAD-US scoring system for observing the protective effect of prophylaxis in hemophilia patients: A prospective, multicenter, observational study. Turkish J Hematol 2021; 38(2): 101–110. doi: https://doi.org/10.4274/tjh.galenos.2021.2020.0717.
20. Knobe K, Berntorp E. Haemophilia and joint disease: pathophysiology, evaluation, and management. J Comorb 2011; 1(1): 51–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.15256/joc.2011.1.2.
21. Frija G, Blažić I, Frush DP, et al. How to improve access to medical imaging in low-and middle-income countries? EClinicalMedicine 2021; 38: 101034. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101034.
22. Payal V, Sharma P, Chhangani NP, Janu Y, Singh Y, Sharma A. Joint health status of hemophilia patients in Jodhpur region. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2015; 31(3): 362–366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-014-0465-2.
23. Mishra S, Kumar S, Panwar A, et al. A clinical profile of hemophilia patients and assessment of their quality of life in Western Uttar Pradesh, India: An observational study. Med J Dr DY Patil Univ [serial online] 2016; 9(3): 320–324. Available from https://www.mjdrdypu.org/text.asp?2016/9/3/320/182501.
24. Jansen NWD, Roosendaal G, Lundin B, et al. The combination of the biomarkers urinary C-terminal telopeptide of type II collagen, serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein, and serum chondroitin sulfate 846 reflects cartilage damage in hemophilic arthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 60(1): 290–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24184.
25. Stephensen D, Tait RC, Brodie N, et al. Changing patterns of bleeding in patients with severe haemophilia A. Haemophilia 2009; 15(6): 1210–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01876.x.
26. Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Jimenez-Yuste V, Aznar JA. Joint protection in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2011; 17(2): 1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2011.02615.x.
27. Valentino LA, Taylor A. Hemophilia Clinical Consults: hemophilic arthropathy, reduced bone density and preventive strategies. Clin Consult 2011; 1:1.
28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Report on the Universal Data Collection Program. 2005. 7 (no. 1): 1–39. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/blooddisorders/udc/documents/report-udcprogram_may-1998-december-2004_july-2005.pdf.
29. Van Dijk K, Fischer K, Van Der Bom JG, Grobbee DE, Van Den Berg HM. Variability in clinical phenotype of severe haemophilia: the role of the first joint bleed. Haemophilia 2005; 11(5): 438–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01124.x.
30. Hassan TH, Badr MA, El-Gerby KM. Correlation between musculoskeletal function and radiological joint scores in haemophilia A adolescents. Haemophilia 2011; 17(6): 920–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2011.02496.x.
31. Fischer K, van der Bom JG, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, et al. The effects of postponing prophylactic treatment on long-term outcome in patients with severe hemophilia. Blood 2002; 99(7): 2337–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.v99.7.2337.
32. Valentino LA. Blood-induced joint disease: the pathophysiology of hemophilic arthropathy. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8(9): 1895–902. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03962.x.
33. Tlacuilo-Parra A, Villela-Rodriguez J, Garibaldi-Covarrubias R, Soto-Padilla J, Orozco-Alcala J. Functional independence score in hemophilia: A cross-sectional study assessment of Mexican children. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010; 54(3): 394–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.22291.
34. Altisent C, Martorell M, Crespo A, Casas L, Torrents C, Parra R. Early prophylaxis in children with severe haemophilia A: clinical and ultrasound imaging outcomes. Haemophilia 2016; 22(2): 218–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.12792.

PDF Download

Download PDF

Open in full-page viewer

Authors

Bhabani Sankar Dhal

iambhabs11@gmail.com

Dept of Medicine, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India
Anupam Dutta
Arijit Das

Dept of Medicine, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India
Dhrubajyoti Borpatragohain

Dept of Radiodiagnosis, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India
Adity Sharma

Dept of Pathology, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India
Arnav Kashyap

Dept of Radiodiagnosis, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India