ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
Therapeutic advances in hemophilia: from molecular innovation to patient-centered global care.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized prophylactic therapy optimization in hemophilia A using a hybrid PK-PD-TTE model and deep RL.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026Article
- Integrating Clinical, Functional, and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Haemophilia Care: A Delphi-Based Consensus on a New Monitoring Tool.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Structural Enablers of Rare Disease Treatment Coverage in Latin America and the Caribbean: Lessons from Emicizumab.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Disease burden and unmet medical need in severe hemophilia in Greece: insights from clinicians and patients.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemophilia A and B are uncommon inherited bleeding disorders linked to the X chromosome, resulting from a lack of coagulation factors VIII or IX, respectively. Acknowledged for centuries, hemophilia was historically a dangerous condition lacking effective treatment methods. Significant progress in the 20th century brought about clotting factor alternatives and strategies for preventive treatment. This review offers a refreshed overview of both conventional and new therapies, such as gene therapy, by assessing their advantages, drawbacks, and potential future developments. The narrative review consolidates existing information regarding the pathophysiology of hemophilia, its classification, genotype-phenotype correlations, and advancements in treatment. It examines factor replacement therapies along with newer strategies like non-factor therapies, immune tolerance induction, and gene therapy, while evaluating how these treatments affect patient quality of life and worldwide access to healthcare. While factor replacement therapy is still essential, it entails regular infusions, substantial expenses, and potential risks of inhibitor formation. Innovations such as extended half-life treatments and subcutaneous therapies have enhanced adherence and lowered bleeding rates. Gene therapy has demonstrated the possibility of prolonged natural factor production but continues to encounter issues concerning long-term safety, durability, and accessibility. Newly emerging concerns include the underrepresentation of Hemophilia B in translational research, the immunological challenges associated with vector-based platforms, and significant global disparities in accessing advanced therapies, particularly in low-resource settings. In spite of progress, inequalities in treatment remain, with around 70% of patients globally unable to access crucial therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.