Intermediate-dose versus high-dose prophylaxis for severe hemophilia: comparing outcome and costs since the 1970s.

Prophylactic treatment in severe hemophilia is very effective but is limited by cost issues. The implementation of 2 different prophylactic regimens in The Netherlands and Sweden since the 1970s may be considered a natural experiment. We compared the costs and outcomes of Dutch intermediate- and Swedish high-dose prophylactic regimens for patients with severe hemophilia (factor VIII/IX < 1 IU/dL) born between 1970 and 1994, using prospective standardized outcome assessment and retrospective collection of cost data. Seventy-eight Dutch and 50 Swedish patients, median age 24 years (range, 14-37 years), were included. Intermediate-dose prophylaxis used less factor concentrate (median: Netherlands, 2100 IU/kg per year [interquartile range (IQR), 1400-2900 IU/kg per year] vs Sweden, 4000 IU/kg per year [IQR, 3000-4900 IU/kg per year]); (P < .01). Clinical outcome was slightly inferior for the intermediate-dose regimen (P < .01) for 5-year bleeding (median, 1.3 [IQR, 0.8-2.7] vs 0 [IQR, 0.0-2.0] joint bleeds/y) and joint health (Haemophilia Joint Health Score >10 of 144 points in 46% vs 11% of participants), although social participation and quality of life were similar. Annual total costs were 66% higher for high-dose prophylaxis (mean, 180 [95% confidence interval, 163 - 196] × US$1000 for Dutch vs 298 [95% confidence interval, 271-325]) × US$1000 for Swedish patients; (P < .01). At group level, the incremental benefits of high-dose prophylaxis appear limited. At the patient level, prophylaxis should be tailored individually, and many patients may do well receiving lower doses of concentrate without compromising safety.