Diagnosis and treatment of von Willebrand disease: new perspectives and nuances.

In 1926, Erik von Willebrand, a Finnish internist andacademic, evaluated and described a 5-year-old girlwith extreme bleeding and bruising due to what hadbeen designated the A˚landic haemorrhagic diseaseby inhabitants of this archipelago island in the Gulfof Bothnia. Hjordis, the propositus, was the ninth of12 children born to a pedigree in which four femalesiblings had already died before the age of 4 withuncontrolled haemorrhage and in which 23 of 66family members, predominantly females, had expe-rienced signiﬁcant bleeding and bruising complica-tions [1]. In fact, Hjordis herself eventually died atthe age of 13 during her fourth menstrual cycle.Professor von Willebrand mistakenly concluded thatthis bleeding diathesis was an unusual form ofhaemophilia and decided to label the new diseaseas pseudo-haemophilia to differentiate it from thesex-linked recessive haemophilia A. Little did vonWillebrand realize that this disease, eventually tobecomeeponymous[vonWillebranddisease(VWD)],would become the most commonly diagnosed con-genital bleeding disorder, with a prevalence rangingbetween 1 per 10 000 individuals to 1.3% [2]. Type1 VWD is the most common subtype, representingup to 75–80% of all cases while the subtype 3 VWDoccurs in approximately 1 per million population inthe United States and Europe [2]. Determination ofthe exact prevalence of VWD is hindered somewhatby the heterogeneity of clinical and diagnosticlaboratory features. Even Professor von Willebrandappreciated the challenges of diagnosing VWD as hecollaborated with Professor Rudolf Ju¨gens at theBerlin University to examine patients blood sampleswith a newly invented kapilla¨rtrombometer appa-ratus [3]. Although they were technically mistakenwhen they attributed the bleeding manifestations ofVWD to a platelet defect, their observations wereremarkably prescient since it was not until early1970s that the existence of a speciﬁc von Willebrandfactor (VWF) glycoprotein separate from factor VIIIwas ﬁnally appreciated and demonstrated to supportplatelet adhesion to the subendothelial matrix ofdamaged blood vessels.Over the last 81 years since von Willebranddescribed the bleeding disorder, there have beennumerous attempts and approaches to reﬁne thediagnosis of the disease so that appropriate andefﬁcacious treatment can be delivered. The clinicalphenotype of VWD includes, in part, information onwhether bleeding is spontaneous or related to surgi-cal or physical trauma; family history and inheri-tance pattern; menstrual history in women; age ofonset of bleeding (to distinguish between acquired vs.inherited coagulation disorders); and sites of bleed-ing(mucocutaneousvs.visceral,intra-articular,intra-muscular, or soft tissue locations). Subsequentlaboratory testing is necessary to exclude or conﬁrmthe diagnosis and to further classify the subtype ofVWD. This article will focus on selected vagariesassociated with the ability to utilize clinical pheno-typic information gathered through the history andphysical examination to predict the presence ofVWD. The clinical diagnosis of VWD must be based,however, on more than physician suspicion andintuition. Thus, the need for conﬁrmatory testing inthe laboratory. The frailties of conventional labora-tory testing for diagnosing VWD and the use of anin vitro surrogate of the bleeding time will also be