Musculoskeletal impact of haemophilia justifies physiotherapy throughout life. Recently the Dutch Health Care Institute constrained their ‘list of chronic conditions’, and withdrew financial coverage of physiotherapy for elderly persons with haemophilia (PWH). This decision was based on lack of scientific evidence and not being in accordance with ‘state of science and practice’. Methods In general, evidence regarding physiotherapy is limited, and especially in rare diseases like haemophilia. ‘Evidence based medicine’ classifies and recommends evidence based on meta‐analyses, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials, but also means integrating evidence with individual clinical expertise. For the evaluation of physiotherapy – usually individualized treatment – case studies, observational studies and Case Based Reasoning may be more beneficial. Results Overall annual treatment costs for haemophilia care in the Netherlands are estimated over 100 million Euros, of which 95% is covered by clotting factor concentrates. The cost for physiotherapy assessments in all seven Dutch HTCs (seven centres for adult PWH and seven centres for children) is limited at approximately 500 000 Euros annually. Costs of the actual physiotherapy sessions, carried out in our Dutch first‐line care system, will also not exceed 500 000 Euros. Thus, implementation of physiotherapy in haemophilia care the Netherlands in a most optimal way would cost less than 1% of the total budget. Aim The present paper describes the role of physiotherapy in haemophilia care including available evidence and providing suggestions regarding generation of evidence. Establishing the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of physiotherapy in haemophilia care is a major topic for the next decennium.
LINK
The overlap in symptoms between joint bleeds and flare‐ups of haemophilia arthropathy (HA) creates difficulties in differentiating between the two conditions. Diagnosis of haemarthrosis is currently empirically made based upon clinical presentations. However, no standard diagnostic criteria are available. To offer appropriate treatment, rapid and accurate diagnosis is essential. Additionally, adequate differentiation can decrease health costs significantly. Aim The aim of this study was to identify signs and symptoms to differentiate between an intra‐articular joint bleed and an acute flare‐up of HA in patients with haemophilia and make an initial proposal of items to include in a diagnostic criteria set. Methods Six focus group interviews with a total of 13 patients and 15 professionals were carried out. The focus groups were structured following the Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Results The most important signs and symptoms used to differentiate between joint bleeds and HA were (i) course of the symptoms, (ii) cause of the complaints, (iii) joint history, (iv) type of pain and (v) degree of impairments in range of motion. Conclusion This qualitative study provides insight into signs and symptoms that are currently used to differentiate between joint bleeds and flare‐ups of HA. Results of this study can be used to develop a valid and standardized clinical diagnostic criteria set to differentiate between these two conditions. Further research is necessary to validate the signs and symptoms found in this study.
LINK
