ReviewDrugs2026
Personalized Treatment of Hemophilia: Matching Therapies to Patient Needs in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.
Review in Drugs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The therapeutic landscape of hemophilia, a rare inherited bleeding disorder, has rapidly evolved, introducing several novel modalities: extended half-life (EHL) coagulation factor concentrates, non-factor therapies, hemostasis-rebalancing agents, and gene therapy. These advances have improved clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding and treatment burden. However, individualizing treatment in routine practice has become more complex. This narrative review aims to provide a practical summary of available treatment options for pharmacologists, policymakers, and other readers who are not hemophilia specialists. A practical decision framework integrates available data with the clinical indication (regular prophylaxis, management of breakthrough bleeding, and perioperative care), patient-specific modifiers (age, lifestyle, inhibitor status, venous access, joint phenotype, comorbidities, and thrombosis risk). Drug therapies are discussed according to clinical evidence, including pivotal phase 3 trials, long-term extension studies, real-world data, and late-stage development programs. Factor replacement remains critical for hemostatic control during acute bleeding, surgery, and other interventions where predictable and measurable exposure is needed, whereas non-factor and rebalancing therapies provide low-burden prophylactic alternatives with distinct safety profiles and monitoring challenges. Direct comparisons between treatment classes are limited, making treatment individualization essential. Gene therapy has demonstrated more durable outcomes in hemophilia B than in hemophilia A. This review supports shared decision-making and individualized treatment selection in modern hemophilia care. While clinical trial evidence is limited by the scarcity of head-to-head comparisons and incomplete integration of real-world determinants, registry data collection will be essential.
Identifiers
42786360What 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.