Citation
J Haem Pract 2016; 3(1):33-38. doi: 10.17225/jhp00073

Authors: James Munn, Kate Khair, Andrew Scott, Robyn Shoemark, Julia Spires, Morten Lind Jensen, Reto Wirz

James Munn
University of Michigan Hemophilia and Coagulation Disorders Program, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Email: jmunn@med.umich.edu

Kate Khair
Haemophilia Centre, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, Great Ormond St, London WC1N 3JH, UK.

Andrew Scott
Phoenix Healthcare, Parkshot House, 5 Kew Road Richmond, London TW9 2PR, UK.

Robyn Shoemark
The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead 2145, New South Wales, Australia.

Julia Spires
Haemophilia Centre, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3JH, UK.

Morten Lind Jensen
Novo Nordisk A/S, Novo Nordisk Park 1, 2760 Måløv, Denmark.

Reto Wirz
Novo Nordisk Health Care AG, Thurgauerstrasse 36, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland.

Abstract

Prophylactic coagulation factor replacement is increasingly the treatment modality of choice for people with haemophilia (PWH). Currently available recombinant factor products require reconstitution from a lyophilised powder and diluent, and a range of infusion systems is available to assist in this process. This study aimed to understand the properties of a reconstitution/infusion system that are most important to PWH and carers of children with haemophilia (CWH), and to assess two available systems produced by Novo Nordisk for the reconstitution and infusion of activated recombinant factor VII and recombinant factor VIII: the original infusion system and the newer MixPro® system. Both were tested by a group of 67 PWH or carers of CWH who were naïve to them. Participants rated the performance of each system against 18 predefined parameters using the 7-point Likert scale, and ranked the importance of these parameters to the design of an infusion system. They also directly compared the performance of the two systems and provided qualitative feedback. Overall, MixPro® was preferred to the original system by 94% of study participants. This was reflected in the performance scores for individual parameters, with scores in 16/18 parameters being significantly higher for MixPro® (p<0.05) than the original system. Low contamination risk was seen as the most important criterion in the design and choice of an infusion system, with 97% regarding MixPro® as the superior system in this category. The MixPro® system was perceived as being quick, easy to use, convenient and portable. It is hoped that these findings may help guide the future design of infusion systems for PWH.

Acknowledgements

Editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript was provided by AXON Communications, and was financially supported by Novo Nordisk in compliance with international guidelines for good publication practice. The research described in this article was undertaken by Phoenix Marketing International and funded by Novo Nordisk Health Care AG, Zürich, Switzerland.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

  1. Srivastava A, Brewer AK, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, et al, Guidelines for the management of hemophilia. Haemophilia 2013 19(1): e1-e47.
  2. Chambost H, Ljung R, and the Pednet Group. Changing pattern of care of boys with haemophilia in western European centres. Haemophilia 2005 11(2): 92-9.
  3. Ljung R, Prophylactic therapy in haemophilia. Blood Rev 2009 23(6):267-74.
  4. Vidovic N, Musso R, Klamroth R, et al. Postmarketing surveillance study of Kogenate Bayer with Bio-Set in patients with haemophilia A: evaluation of patients’ satisfaction after switch to the new reconstitution system. Haemophilia 2010 16(1): 66-71.
  5. Musso R, Santoro R, Coppola A, et al. Patient preference for needleless factor VIII reconstitution device: the Italian experience. Int J Gen Med 2010. 3: 203-8.
  6. Saxena, K., Barriers and perceived limitations to early treatment of hemophilia. J Blood Med 2013. 4: 49-56.
  7. De Moerloose P, Urbancik W, Van Den Berg HM, Richards M. A survey of adherence to haemophilia therapy in six European countries: results and recommendations. Haemophilia 2008 14(5): 931-8.
  8. Hacker MR, Geraghty S, Manco-Johnson M, Barriers to compliance with prophylaxis therapy in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2001. 7(4): 392-6.
  9. Khair K, Evaluating a self infusion device for children with haemophilia. Paediatr Nurs 2006 18(10): 19-20.
  10. Lindvall K, Colstrup L, Wollter IM, et al. Compliance with treatment and understanding of own disease in patients with severe and moderate haemophilia. Haemophilia 2006 12(1): 47-51.
  11. Schrijvers LH, Beijlevelt-van der Zande M, Peters M, et al. Learning intravenous infusion in haemophilia: experience from the Netherlands. Haemophilia 2012 18(4): 516-20.
  12. Khair K. Children’s preferences of transfer devices for reconstitution of factors VIII and IX for the treatment of haemophilia. Haemophilia 2009 15(1): 159-67.

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice is published by Haemnet.

Haemnet is a registered charity that brings together and gives a voice to haemophilia nurses, physiotherapists and allied health care professionals, providing forums for collaborative research, educational activities and support.