{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016722408026755852, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016722408026755853, 'mean_word_length': 5.613259668508287, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tertiary prophylaxis in adults: is there a rationale?

There is lack of evidence‐based recommendations or clear‐cut consensus regarding the clinical and economic utility of regular prophylaxis started in adulthood, with the aim of keeping the clinical situation from getting worse by prevention of further bleeds contributing to increasing musculo‐skeletal or other morbidity in haemophilia. Such a prophylaxis program has been shown in relatively small cohorts to be effective in reducing bleeding occurrence, with a variable effect on the joint status, but with significantly higher factor consumption and consequently higher costs than on‐demand therapy. There has been no attempt to identify subsets of patients who may benefit from “tertiary” prophylaxis more than others, for example, due to their bleeding phenotype and/or requirements for product issued on‐demand or to identify the dosage that provides the optimal balance of clinical benefit and cost effectiveness. This article reviews the published literature on prophylaxis started beyond the age of 18 years, the barriers to the uptake of prophylaxis programs particularly in adults and highlights areas in need of further research.