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

Authors

  • 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.

Additional Files

Published

2021-06-30

Issue

Section

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE - LABORATORY