C R M Hay1,2, H Xiang2, M Scott2,3, P W Collins4, R Liesner5, G Dolan6, R Hollingsworth7. 1. University Department of Haematology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK. 2. UK National Haemophilia Database, Manchester, UK. 3. Institute of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 4. Haemophilia Comprehensive Care Centre, The School of Medicine, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK. 5. The Haemophilia Centre, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. 6. Thrombosis and Haemostasis Centre, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UJ. 7. MDSAS Ltd, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Haemtrack is an electronic home treatment diary for patients with inherited bleeding disorders, introduced in 2008. It aimed to improve the timeliness and completeness of patient-reported treatment records, to facilitate analysis of treatment and outcome trends. The system is easy to use, responsive and accessible. METHODS: The software uses Microsoft technologies with a SQL Server database and an ASP.net website front-end, running on personal computers, android and I-phones. Haemtrack interfaces with the UK Haemophilia Centre Information System and the National Haemophilia Database (NHD). Data are validated locally by Haemophilia Centres and centrally by NHD. Data collected include as follows: treatment brand, dose and batch number, time/date of bleed onset and drug administration, reasons for treatment (prophylaxis, bleed, follow-up), bleed site, severity, pain-score and outcome. RESULTS: Haemtrack was used by 90% of haemophilia treatment centres (HTCs) in 2015, registering 2683 patients using home therapy of whom 1923 used Haemtrack, entering >17 000 treatments per month. This included 68% of all UK patients with severe haemophilia A. Reporting compliance varied and 55% of patients reported ≥75% of potential usage. Centres had a median 78% compliance overall. A strategy for progressively improving compliance is in place. Age distribution and treatment intensity were similar in Haemtrack users/non-users with severe haemophilia treated prophylactically. CONCLUSION: The Haemtrack system is a valuable tool that may improve treatment compliance and optimize treatment regimen. Analysis of national treatment trends and large-scale longitudinal, within-patient analysis of changes in regimen and/or product will provide valuable insights that will guide future clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: Haemtrack is an electronic home treatment diary for patients with inherited bleeding disorders, introduced in 2008. It aimed to improve the timeliness and completeness of patient-reported treatment records, to facilitate analysis of treatment and outcome trends. The system is easy to use, responsive and accessible. METHODS: The software uses Microsoft technologies with a SQL Server database and an ASP.net website front-end, running on personal computers, android and I-phones. Haemtrack interfaces with the UK Haemophilia Centre Information System and the National Haemophilia Database (NHD). Data are validated locally by Haemophilia Centres and centrally by NHD. Data collected include as follows: treatment brand, dose and batch number, time/date of bleed onset and drug administration, reasons for treatment (prophylaxis, bleed, follow-up), bleed site, severity, pain-score and outcome. RESULTS: Haemtrack was used by 90% of haemophilia treatment centres (HTCs) in 2015, registering 2683 patients using home therapy of whom 1923 used Haemtrack, entering >17 000 treatments per month. This included 68% of all UK patients with severe haemophilia A. Reporting compliance varied and 55% of patients reported ≥75% of potential usage. Centres had a median 78% compliance overall. A strategy for progressively improving compliance is in place. Age distribution and treatment intensity were similar in Haemtrack users/non-users with severe haemophilia treated prophylactically. CONCLUSION: The Haemtrack system is a valuable tool that may improve treatment compliance and optimize treatment regimen. Analysis of national treatment trends and large-scale longitudinal, within-patient analysis of changes in regimen and/or product will provide valuable insights that will guide future clinical practice.
Authors: Angelika Batorova; Ana Boban; Melen Brinza; Toshiko Lissitchkov; Laszlo Nemes; Irena Zupan Preložnik; Petr Smejkal; Nadezhda Zozulya; Jerzy Windyga Journal: J Med Life Date: 2022-04
Authors: Erik Tambuyzer; Benjamin Vandendriessche; Christopher P Austin; Philip J Brooks; Kristina Larsson; Katherine I Miller Needleman; James Valentine; Kay Davies; Stephen C Groft; Robert Preti; Tudor I Oprea; Marco Prunotto Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Wenji Qian; Teddy Tai-Ning Lam; Henry Hon Wai Lam; Chi-Kong Li; Yin Ting Cheung Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Richard A Wilkins; David Stephensen; Heidi Siddle; Martin J Scott; Hua Xiang; Elizabeth Horn; Ben Palmer; Graham J Chapman; Michael Richards; Rebecca Walwyn; Anthony Redmond Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ester Zapotocka; Angelika Batorova; Ernest Bilic; Ana Boban; Carmen Escuriola Ettingshausen; Barbara Faganel Kotnik; Radomira Hrdlickova; Pawel Laguna; Jan Machal; Laszlo Nemes; Irena Preloznik Zupan; Gediminas Puras; Marianna Zombori Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2022-03-13
Authors: Francesco Petracca; Rosaria Tempre; Maria Cucciniello; Oriana Ciani; Elena Pompeo; Luigi Sannino; Valeria Lovato; Giancarlo Castaman; Alessandra Ghirardini; Rosanna Tarricone Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-12-01