Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited chronic
hemolytic anaemia associated with recurrent painful
episodes. It is ‘one of the most commonly inherited
diseases world-wide with over 250,000 new births each
year'.[1] The most prevalent is sickle cell anaemia, the
homozygote (HbSS) state. Patients with this disorder
have a chronic hemolytic anemia, but the rates of the
most common acute vaso-occlusive events vary
considerably. High crisis rates are associated with high
haematocrit and low fetal hemoglobin levels, hence
efforts are geared towards increasing the fetal
hemoglobin leve.[2,3]Hydroxyurea (HU) is one of the few approved disease-modifying
medication in the treatment of SCD. HU
therapy has been shown to ameliorate the severity of
the disease in SCA, mainly by inducing HbF
production. [3] There is evidence that escalation of the
dose of HU to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)
significantly increases HbF levels yielding a good clinical
response. [4] Mortality and morbidity rates in sickle cell
disease (SCD) have been considerably reduced since
the introduction of HU in populations where it is
used. [5,6]It is therefore surprising that the degree to which HU
is used in our hospital is low, despite being the foremost
tertiary hospital in Nigeria where SCA affects 2-3%
of the population. This study aims to determine the
level of awareness of HU therapy and the willingness
of the patients to commence its use.
METHODS
This is a cross-sectional study carried out among sickle
cell disease patients attending an adult Haematology
outpatient clinic of a tertiary institution. Data were
collected from 101 consecutive patients using a self-administered
questionnaire. The data collected included
socio-demographic characteristics of the study
participants, their knowledge and attitude towards use
of hydroxyurea. The collected data was coded and
analyzed with SPSS version 22. The responses were
recorded in proportions and a bivariate analysis of
the knowledge, interest and use of hydroxyurea was
done using Pearson’s chi square test.
RESULTS
One hundred and one patients responded to the
questionnaire. Majority (67%) of which were below
40 years and mostly (66%) single (Table 1). The gender
was balanced with a male to female ratio of 1:1.
Table 1:
Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents
Variables
n(%)
Age
14-25
47(48.4)
31-35
31(32.0)
36-45
12(12.4)
46-55
4(4.1)
56-65
3(3.1)
Sex
Male
49(48.5)
Female
51(50.5)
Educational status
No formal education
1(1)
Primary education
0(0)
Secondary education
25(24.8)
Tertiary education
70(69.3)
Marital status
Single
66(65.3)
Married
32(31.7)
Divorced
1(1)
Separated
1(1)
Over 70% have achieved tertiary education and only
1% had no formal education (Table 1). Only 15.5%
of the respondents have more than 3 crises per year
with the majority (60.2%) having less than 1 crisis per
year. Half of the respondents were not admitted in
the preceding year with 6 (5.9%) of them having had
≥3 admissions.Less than a quarter of the patients were aware of
hydroxyurea (Table 2) while only four have taken HU
or had HbF quantitation done. Among those who had
knowledge about HU, only 11 are aware of the side
effects and their source of information was from medical personnel. Despite the poor knowledge about
HU and its side effect, more than half are willing to
take the drug. Three respondent would not want to
use the drug because of its cancer related
complications. Majority (67%) of those interested in
HU use would not mind having monthly complete
blood counts and clinic appointments. Bivariate analysis
of the knowledge, interest and use of the drug showed
that interest had more impact on its use than
knowledge about the drug (knowledge vs use; X2=11.2,
P=0.001; interest vs use; X2=64.9, P<0.001). However,
it should be noted that knowledge and interest may
have effect on each other (X2=29.7, P<0.001).
Table 2:
Descriptive characteristics of knowledge and use of hydroxyurea by sickle cell disease patients in an adult clinic
Frequency
Percent
Knowledge about Hydroxyurea (99)
Yes
21
21.2
No
78
78.8
Interest in the use of Hydroxyurea (101)
Yes
53
52.5
No
35
34.7
Not sure
13
12.9
Those who had ever used Hydroxyurea (92)
Yes
4
4.3
No
88
95.7
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated the knowledge and attitude
towards use of HU among adult sickle cell patients. It
was observed that though less than a quarter have
knowledge of hydroxyurea, more than half are willing
to use the medication showing its great potential among
our patients. Also, most of them have no knowledge
of HU despite having tertiary education. Educational
attainment therefore had no bearing on whether
respondents have good knowledge of HU use in SCD,
considering the fact that over 70% had tertiary
education. This is interesting because the level of
education is expected to correlate with the knowledge
but this is not so in this survey. This might suggest a
poor knowledge seeking behavior among the patients.
Most of the respondents who are aware of HU
therapy got their information from medical personnel,
which showed that medical personnel would be a
good source of dissemination of information about
the drug. This would therefore suggest that lack of
such information by the majority of the patients is
because Physicians have not discussed the possibility
of the therapy with them. To ensure that patients are
up to date especially in a low income setting, where
many people are not sufficiently knowledgeable about
the use of the internet in the acquisition of information,
attending Physicians should bring available treatment
options to the patients. It may therefore be worthwhile
to seek the attitude of the Physicians to the use of HU
in SCD. The use of the drug was better in another
Nigerian study where about a third of the patients
were current users while 60% had never used the drug
and only four patients consistently used the drug. [7]Majority of our respondents except for a few had
not had HbF quantitation done before which could
be due to the financial implication of the test or could
be as a result of non-availability of the test facility.
Making HbF quantitation readily available in centres
with a high SCD patient population should be
mandatory. This is especially because it is a necessary
pre-requisite to the commencement and monitoring of response to HU therapy. Quantitation of HbF by
HPLC should therefore not be solely for research as it
is done in many resource poor countries.More than half of the respondents indicated interest
in the use of HU but it is not known whether the
interest shown was because they are not fully aware
of its possible side effects. It could also be that many
of the respondents are so overwhelmed by the disease
and its complications that they would readily accept
any new modality of treatment. Of those who did
not show any interest in the use of HU, the fear of
cancer related complications was a contributing factor.The knowledge of the side effects is particularly
important for SCD patients in whom it is used
prophylactically. Early detection and prompt treatment
of side effects such as myelosuppression is therefore
important. Other possible side effects of HU use like
hair loss, skin rash, gastrointestinal disturbances and
potential likelihood of teratogenicity and carcinogenesis
are equally important and should be discussed with
patients before the commencement of therapy.
Though the likelihood of teratogenicity or
carcinogenesis have not been validated as long term
follow up of people taking HU among SCD cohort
or for other diseases have not shown significant
increase in malignancies. [4,6,8] However, the remote
possibility of this occurring should still be discussed
with patients. Safety of HU in pregnancy is not clear
yet though babies born to patients on HU have
showed no evidence of birth defects or developmental
defects, it is highly recommended that patients on HU
should avoid pregnancy. [6,8]Patients with >3 crises or admissions per year are
recommended for HU therapy [4,8], this would mean
that only about 15% of the patient population would
be considered for HU therapy in our setting. Most
eligible patients are not currently on HU therapy, this
can be attributed to provider associated barriers,
perceived risks of HU use or lack of awareness. [7,9]
Financial implications of the daily use of HU might
also be a barrier in a low resource country. [10,11] Low
fixed dose which has been found to be efficacious,
safe and pragmatic in low resource countries [11,12,13], may
therefore be an option.The shortcoming of this study is that a validated
instrument was not employed in assessing the study
participants. Also, we did not explore the role of
sociodemographic characteristics on the knowledge,
attitude and use of the drug by the participants.
CONCLUSION
Many patients with sickle cell disease would benefit
from HU therapy in ameliorating the disease process
and complications. It is therefore imperative that the
level of awareness and use of HU could be increased
by providing leaflets and other educational aids to the
patients. Provider associated barriers may also pose a
problem to the commencement of HU use and
therefore providers should be equipped with enabling
facility for the commencement and monitoring of
SCD patients on HU.
Authors: Najibah A Galadanci; Shehu Umar Abdullahi; Leah D Vance; Abdulkadir Musa Tabari; Shehi Ali; Raymond Belonwu; Auwal Salihu; Aisha Amal Galadanci; Binta Wudil Jibir; Halima Bello-Manga; Kathleen Neville; Fenella J Kirkham; Yu Shyr; Sharon Phillips; Brittany V Covert; Adetola A Kassim; Lori C Jordan; Muktar H Aliyu; Michael R DeBaun Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: S Charache; M L Terrin; R D Moore; G J Dover; F B Barton; S V Eckert; R P McMahon; D R Bonds Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-05-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charif A Sidani; Walid Ballourah; Mohamad El Dassouki; Samar Muwakkit; Ibrahim Dabbous; Hanan Dahoui; Aghiad Al-Kutoubi; Miguel R Abboud Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: Bamidele O Tayo; Titilola S Akingbola; Santosh L Saraf; Binal N Shah; Chinedu A Ezekekwu; Omowunmi Sonubi; Lewis L Hsu; Richard S Cooper; Victor R Gordeuk Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 10.047