METHODS: An advisory board meeting was conducted with experts in haemophilia care from Asia to understand the heterogeneity in clinical practices and care provision in the region.
FINDINGS: The overall prevalence of haemophilia in Asia ranges between 3 and 8.58/100,000 patients. Haemophilia A was more prevalent as compared to haemophilia B with a ratio of around 5:1. There is under-diagnosis in the region due to lack of diagnosis, registries and/or lack of appropriate facilities in suburban areas. Most patients are referred to the haematologists by their families or primary care physicians, while some are identified during bleeding episodes. Genetic testing faces obstacles like resource constraints, services available at limited centres and unwillingness of patients to participate. Prophylaxis is offered for people with haemophilia (PWH) with a severe bleeding phenotype. Recombinant factors are approved in most countries across the region and are the preferred therapy. The challenges highlighted for not receiving a high standard of care include patients' reluctance to use an intravenous treatment, poor patient compliance due to frequency of infusions, budget constraints and lack of funding, insurance, availability and accessibility of factor concentrates. Prevalence of neutralizing antibodies ranged from 5% to 20% in the region. Use of immune tolerance induction and bypassing agents to treat inhibitors depends on their cost and availability.
CONCLUSION: Haemophilia care in Asia has evolved to a great extent. However, some challenges remain for which a strategic approach along with multi-stakeholder involvement are needed.
METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences.
RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.