No abstract

Background The hallmark of severe hemophilia is recurrent bleeding into joints and soft tissues with progressive joint damage, notwithstanding ondemand treatment. Prophylaxis has long been used but not universally adopted because of medical, psychosocial, and cost controversies. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of clotting factor concentrate prophylaxis in the management of people with hemophilia A or B. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register. In addition, we searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL), handsearched relevant journals and abstract books and reference lists of relevant articles. Last search of Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 07 April 2011. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating people with severe hemophilia A or hemophilia B receiving prophylactic clotting factor concentrates. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. 1 Clotting factor concentrates given to prevent bleeding and bleeding-related complications in people with hemophilia A or B (Review)

Psychosocial factors have a significant impact on quality of life for patients with chronic diseases such as haemophilia. Interventions to support the psychosocial needs of patients and their families, such as offering information and assistance, clarifying doubts, and teaching coping strategies to minimize the impact of disabilities, may help to maximize patient outcomes and improve quality of life for their families. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current literature on psychosocial aspects of haemophilia. Literature searches were performed using the PubMed database to identify studies evaluating psychosocial stressors in persons with haemophilia. Articles pertaining to the HIV epidemic were excluded from the analysis, as were those published before 1997. The literature reviews identified 24 studies, covering a range of different populations, generally with small cohorts (n < 100). Most studies were questionnaire based, with almost no overlap in terms of the instruments used. Only one study combined questionnaire techniques with qualitative methods. Except for two European studies, all publications reported data from a single country. Overall, studies tended to show that quality of life is reduced in persons with haemophilia, with a potential impact on education and employment, particularly when prophylactic treatment is not available. Carrier status in women may have a psychosocial impact and affect reproductive choices. Data on psychosocial aspects of the haemophilia life cycle are lacking in the published literature, along with data from developing countries. There is a need for more international, multifaceted research to explore and quantify the social and psychological aspects of life with haemophilia.

Objectives/Background and Objectives: Prior epidemics of high-mortality human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-1) in 2003, have driven the characterization of compounds that could be possibly active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Presently, no approved treatment or prophylaxis is available for COV-ID-19. We comment on the existing COVID-19 research methodologies in general and the published reporting. Given the media attention and claims of effectiveness, we chose chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin, as an area of COVID-19 research to examine.Methods/Study Design and Setting: MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2019 to present (April 3rd, 2020) using a mix of keywords such as COVID-19 and chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. We also searched the largest clinical medicine preprint repository, medRxiv.org.Results: We found 6 studies, 3 randomized control trials and 3 observational studies, focusing on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with azithromycin). We critically appraised the evidence. Conclusion:We found that the COVID-19 research methodology is very poor in the area of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine research. In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19.