SURGICAL COMORBIDITIES - A HIGH MEDICAL AND FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR HEMOPHILIA CARE

  • P. SERBAN “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania
  • Teodora Smaranda ARGHIRESCU Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania
  • Margit SERBAN Romanian Academy of Medical Sciences
  • E. BOIA “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania
  • J.M. PATRASCU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania
  • Cristina Emilia URSU Romanian Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Adina TRAILA Medical Centre for Evaluation Therapy, Medical Education and Rehabilitation of Children and Young Adults, European Hemophilia Treatment Centre, Buzias, Romania
  • C. JINCA “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania
  • Estera BOERIU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania
  • D. ANDREI Romanian Hemophilia Association Timisoara, Romania
  • Brigitha VLAICU Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Abstract

Comorbidity in hemophilia, a pathology non-related to the primary disease, is a relatively new chapter, catching interest along with the revolutionary improvement of the outcomes of this coagulopathy. Aim: As prophylactic replacement therapy has been only recently introduced in our country, we aimed at assessing the frequency and the medical and financial impact of the surgical life-saving interventions of some challenging comorbidities of hemophilia. Material and methods: In the frame of a retrospective observational PRO (Patient Reported Outcomes) model survey conducted on 122 persons with severe congenital coagulopathies in the period of 2019-2020, we focused our attention on surgical comorbidities compared with surgical secondary morbidity. Results: There were performed 17 surgical interventions on 16 patients, 35.95% of them being for comorbidities. The comparative analysis of the two cohorts of patients, with comorbidities versus secondary morbidity, revealed some significant discrepancies: heterogeneity of the pathologic conditions claiming surgery and the modality of its performance, emergency or elective decision. There were registered also some similarities: age of patients and quality of outcomes. What concerns the financial impact, the medical direct costs were also similar. Conclusions: Surgical comorbidities are a high medical and economic burden for hemophilia care, claiming a comprehensive analysis of their approach in order to prospectively find out the best cost-effective and cost-efficient solution on country level for these unexpected, unpredictable diseases.

Author Biographies

P. SERBAN, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Department 14, Center for Preventive Medicine Studies

Teodora Smaranda ARGHIRESCU, Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Onco-Hematology

Margit SERBAN, Romanian Academy of Medical Sciences

Onco-Hematology Research Unit, Timisoara, Romania

E. BOIA, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Department of Pediatric Surgery

J.M. PATRASCU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Department of Orthopedics

Cristina Emilia URSU, Romanian Academy of Medical Sciences

Onco-Hematology Research Unit, Timisoara, Romania

C. JINCA, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Onco-Hematology

Estera BOERIU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Onco-Hematology

Brigitha VLAICU, Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania

Department 14, Center for Preventive Medicine Studies

References

1. Feinstein AR. Pre-therapeutic classification of comorbidity in chronic disease. J Chr Dis, 1970; 23: 455-468.
2. Vogeli C, Shields AE, Lee TA, et al. Multiple chronic conditions: prevalence, health consequences, and implications for quality, care management, and costs. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007; 22(3): 391-395.
3. Valderas JM, Starfield B, Sibbald B, Salisbury C, Roland M. Defining comorbidity: implications for understanding health and health services. Ann Fam Med 2009; 7(4): 357-363.
4. Mauser-Bunschoten EP, Fransen Van De Putte DE, Schutgens RE. Comorbidity in the ageing hemo-philia patient: the downside of increased life expectancy. Hemophilia 2009; 15(4): 853-863.
5. Canaro M, Goranova-Marinova V, Berntorp E. The ageing patient with hemophilia. Eur J Haematol 2015; 94(Suppl 77): 17-22.
6. Darby SC, Kan SW, Spooner RJ, et al. Mortality rates, life expectancy, and causes of death in people with hemophilia A or B in the United Kingdom who were not infected with HIV. Blood 2007; 110(3): 815-825.
7. Shapiro S, Makris M. Hemophilia and ageing. Br J Haematol 2019; 184(5): 712-720.
8. Khleif AA, Rodriguez N, Brown D, Escobar MA. Multiple comorbid conditions among middle-aged and elderly hemophilia patients: prevalence estimates and implications for future care. J of Aging Re-search 2011; Art ID 985703 / doi: 10.4061/2011/985703.
9. Schramm W, Gringeri A, Ljung R, et al. ESCHQOL Study Group. Hemophilia care in Europe: the ESCHQoL study. Hemophilia 2012; 18(5): 729-737.
10. Skinner MW. WFH: closing the global gap-achieving optimal care. Hemophilia 2012; 18(Suppl 4): 1-12 / doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2012.02822.x.
11. Solimeno LP, Escobar MA, Krassova S, Seremetis S. Major and Minor Classifications for Surgery in People with Hemophilia: A Literature Review. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2018; 24(4): 549-559.
12. Srivastava A, Brewer AK, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, et al. Treatment Guidelines Working Group on Behalf of The World Federation of Hemophilia. Guidelines for the management of hemophilia. He-mophilia 2013; 19(1): e1-47 / doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2012.02909.x.
13. Linn Bernard S, Linn Margaret W, Lee G. Cumulative illness rating scale. J of the American Geriatrics Society 1988; 16(5): 622-626.
14. Osooli M, Steen Carlsson K, Astermark J, Berntorp E. Surgery and survival in birth cohorts with severe hemophilia and differences in access to replacement therapy: The Malmö experience. Hemophilia 2017; 23(5): e403-e408.
15. Kempton CL, Makris M, Holme PA. Management of comorbidities in hemophilia Hemophilia 2020 / doi: 10.1111/hae.14013.
16. Café A, Carvalho M, Crato M, et al. Hemophilia A: health and economic burden of a rare disease in Portugal. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2019; 14(1): 211 / doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1175-5.
17. Rocha P, Carvalho M, Lopes M, Araújo F. Costs and utilization of treatment in patients with hemo-philia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15: 484 / doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1134-3.
18. Chen SL. Economic costs of hemophilia and the impact of prophylactic treatment on patient man-agement. Am J Manag Care 2016; 22(Suppl 5): s126-133.
19. Caviglia H, Landro ME, Galatro G, Candela M, Neme D. Epidemiology of fractures in patients with hemophilia. Injury 2015; 46(10): 1885-1890.
20. Serban M, Mihailov D, Pop L, Ionita H, Ursu E, Talpos-Niculescu S, et al. Development of inhibitors in hemophilia. Ongoing epidemiological study. Hamostaseologie 2011; 31(Suppl 1): S20-23.
Published
2021-06-30
Section
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE - LABORATORY