Lize F. D. van Vulpen

Aim Subclinical bleeding and inflammation play a role in progression of haemophilic arthropathy. Synovial proliferation is predictive of joint bleeding and its early detection may guide treatment changes and prevent arthropathy progression. This study evaluated the prevalence of active and inactive subclinical synovial proliferation and investigated potential biochemical blood/urine markers to identify patients with active subclinical synovial proliferation. Methods This cross‐sectional study included patients with severe haemophilia A born 1970–2006 who were evaluated during routine clinic visits. Patients with (a history of) inhibitors or recent joint bleeding were excluded. Elbows, knees and ankles were examined for subclinical synovial proliferation by ultrasound and physical examination. Active synovial proliferation was distinguished from inactive synovial proliferation using predefined criteria. Blood/urine biochemical markers (serum osteopontin, sVCAM‐1, Coll2‐1, COMP, CS846, TIMP, and urinary CTX‐II) were compared individually and as combined indexes between patients with and without active synovial proliferation. Results This cohort consisted of 79 patients with a median age of 31 years (range 16.5–50.8 years) with 62/79 (78%) of the patients using continuous prophylaxis. The annualized joint bleeding rate over the last 5 years was .6 (.2–1.1). Active (17/79, 22%) and inactive subclinical synovial proliferation (17/79, 22%) were both prevalent in this cohort. Biochemical markers were not correlated with active subclinical synovial proliferation. Conclusion Subclinical synovial proliferation, both active and inactive, was prevalent in patients with severe haemophilia A with access to prophylaxis and would be overlooked without routinely performed ultrasounds. Biochemical markers were unable to identify patients with active subclinical synovial proliferation.

Aim Traditionally, recovery after a joint bleed in people with bleeding disorders is evaluated by clinical symptoms. Following a bleed, however, asymptomatic joints may still show synovial hypertrophy and effusion on ultrasound. We evaluated the duration of full recovery from a joint bleed. Additionally, we determined how recovery differed when assessed by physical examination and ultrasound. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated joint bleeds in elbows, knees and ankles of people with haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease who attended the Van Creveldkliniek between 2016 and 2021. Physical examination (warmth, swelling, range of motion and gait) and ultrasound (effusion and synovial hypertrophy) were performed within 7 days after the onset of the bleed, 1 week after the first examination and monthly thereafter until patients had recovered fully. Joint bleeds were treated in line with the current international treatment guidelines. Results We evaluated 30 joint bleeds in 26 patients. The median recovery time was 1 month (range 0.3‐5 months). In 47% of the joint bleeds, the recovery took longer than 1 month. The moment of recovery based on physical examination and ultrasound differed in 27% of bleeds. Both persistent abnormalities at physical examination in joints with normalized ultrasounds and persistent ultrasound findings in clinically recovered joints occurred. Conclusion Joint bleed recovery can take long and recovery times differed per bleed. Recovery differed when assessed by physical examination or ultrasound. Therefore, both should be used to closely monitor recovery of joint bleeds and offer personalized care.