Von Willebrand disease type 2M: Correlation between genotype and phenotype

Background: An appropriate clinical diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) can be challenging because of a variable bleeding pattern and laboratory phenotype. Genotyping is a powerful diagnostic tool and may have an essential role in the diagnostic field of VWD.  Objectives: To unravel the clinical and laboratory heterogeneity of genetically confirmed VWD type 2M patients and to investigate their relationship.  Methods: Patients with a confirmed VWD type 2M genetic variant in the A1 or A3 domain of von Willebrand factor (VWF) and normal or only slightly aberrant VWF multimers were selected from all subjects genotyped at the Radboud university medical center because of a high suspicion of VWD. Bleeding scores and laboratory results were analyzed.  Results: Fifty patients had a clinically relevant genetic variant in the A1 domain. Median bleeding score was 5. Compared with the nationwide Willebrand in the Netherlands study type 2 cohort, bleeding after surgery or delivery was reported more frequently and mucocutaneous bleedings less frequently. Median VWF activity/VWF antigen (VWF:Act/VWF:Ag) ratio was 0.32, whereas VWF collagen binding activity/VWF antigen (VWF:CB/VWF:Ag) ratio was 0.80. Variants in the A3 domain were only found in two patients with low to normal VWF:Act/VWF:Ag ratios (0.45, 1.03) and low VWF:CB/VWF:Ag ratios (0.45, 0.63).  Conclusion: Genetically confirmed VWD type 2M patients have a relatively mild clinical phenotype, except for bleeding after surgery and delivery. Laboratory phenotype is variable and depends on the underlying genetic variant. Addition of genotyping to the current phenotypic characterization may improve diagnosis and classification of VWD

High prevalence of postpartum hemorrhage in women with rare bleeding disorders in the Netherlands: retrospective data from the RBiN study

BACKGROUND: Women with rare bleeding disorders (RBDs), including coagulation factor deficiencies and fibrinolytic disorders, may have a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Information on this patient category is lacking in the existing PPH guidelines because data on PPH in patients with RBDs are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of PPH in women with an RBD and evaluate the use of peripartum hemostatic prophylaxis. METHODS: In the Rare Bleeding Disorders in the Netherlands (RBiN) study, patients with RBDs (n = 263) were included from all 6 Dutch hemophilia treatment centers. Patient-reported information on delivery, peripartum hemostatic prophylaxis, and occurrence of PPH was collected retrospectively. If available, information about the precise volume of postpartum blood loss was extracted from electronic patient files. PPH was defined as blood loss ≥500 mL (World Health Organization guideline). RESULTS: A total of 244 pregnancies, including 193 livebirths, were reported by 85 women. A considerable proportion of these women experienced PPH, ranging from 30% in factor V deficiency to 100% in hyperfibrinolysis. Overall, PPH was reported in 44% of deliveries performed with and 53% of deliveries performed without administration of peripartum hemostatic prophylaxis. Blood loss was significantly higher in deliveries without administration of hemostatic prophylaxis (median 1000 mL) compared to deliveries with administration of prophylaxis (median 400 mL) (p = 0.011). Patients with relatively mild deficiencies also frequently experienced PPH when peripartum hemostatic prophylaxis was omitted. CONCLUSION: PPH is common in rare coagulation factor deficiencies, both severe and mild, and fibrinolytic disorders, especially when peripartum prophylactic hemostatic treatment was not administered. The use of prophylactic hemostatic treatment was associated with less postpartum blood loss

Desmopressin response depends on the presence and type of genetic variants in patients with type 1 and type 2 von Willebrand disease

Patients with type 1 and type 2 vonWillebrand disease (VWD) can be treated with desmopressin. Although a previous study has shown that the location of the causative VWF gene variant is associated with desmopressin response in type 1 VWD, the association between variants in the VWF gene and desmopressin response is not yet fully understood. Our primary aimwas to compare desmopressin response in type 1 VWD patients with and without a VWF gene variant. Secondly, we investigated whether desmopressin response depends on specific VWF gene variants in type 1 and type 2 VWD.We included 250 patients fromtheWillebrand in the Netherlands study: 72 type 1 without a VWF gene variant, 108 type 1 with a variant, 45 type 2A, 16 type 2M, and 9 type 2N patients. VWF gene was analyzed with ion semiconductor sequencing andMultiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification. Complete response to desmopressin was observed in all type 1 VWD patients without a variant, 64.3% of type 1 patients with a variant, and 31.3% of type 2 patients (P < .001). Despite a large interindividual variability in desmopressin response, patients with the same variant had comparable desmopressin responses. For instance, in 6 type 1 patients with exon 4 to 5 deletion, mean VWF activity at 1 hour after desmopressin was 0.81 IU/mL, with a coefficient of variation of 22.9%. In conclusion, all type 1 VWD patients without a VWF gene variant respond to desmopressin. In type 1 and type 2 VWD patients with a VWF variant, desmopressin response highly depends on the VWF gene variants