Detection and evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy: Which tools may be considered more reliable.

INTRODUCTION

Progressive arthropathy is the main cause of morbidity in patients with severe haemophilia. Diagnostic imaging can detect even subclinical arthropathy and impact prophylactic treatment. However, in most clinical settings the regular joint evaluation and follow-up are based on clinical evaluation and patient's personal reporting of problems, while diagnostic imaging is not regularly employed.

AIM: The aim of our prospective study was to assess how ultrasound (US), clinical examination, patient's subjective assessment and certain laboratory biomarkers correlate with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection and evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy in order to determine which tool is the most reliable.

METHODS

The study included 30 patients with severe haemophilia (age range 16-49 years). MRI (IPSG), US (HEAD-US), clinical examination (HJHS 2.1) and patient's subjective assessment of elbows, knees and ankles were performed; additionally, blood samples for laboratory analysis were taken (s-25-OH vitamin D, s-ferritin, s-C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, s-N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen and s-cartilage oligomeric matrix protein). MRI results were used as a reference standard for joint status. Pearson's r was used to assess correlation of other methods with MRI.

RESULTS

The correlation with MRI was the highest for US (r = .92), considerably higher than for clinical evaluation (r = .62) and patient's subjective assessment (r = .66). There was no correlation between the presence or degree of haemophilic arthropathy and any of the laboratory biomarkers.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study warrant the inclusion of US into the regular follow-up of patients with severe haemophilia, where the equipment and staffing permit.