ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2017
Response to treatment and adverse events associated with use of recombinant activated factor VII in children: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel IVS7+1G>T mutation of life-threatening congenital factor VII deficiency in neonates: A retrospective study in China.Medicine · 2019Observational
- Recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) in refractory haemorrhage for non-haemophiliacs: an eleven-year single-centre experience.BMC hematology · 2018Article
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
backgroundRecombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) is United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for patients with hemophilia with inhibitors or congenital factor VII deficiency. Initial reports of off-label use highlighted its efficacy, though newer reports have not repeated these findings. In both types of publication, though, secondary thromboses have been seen in adult patients. The data in children are less clear.
methodsThis study analyzed all rFVIIa use at a large children's hospital for characteristics and outcomes. Recipients of rFVIIa were identified retrospectively
resultsOver 33 months, 66 patient episodes were treated with a total of 606 doses (median = 2). The most common indication (36.4%) was gastrointestinal bleeding (24/66 patients). Only one patient received a dose for an approved labeled indication. For control of bleeding, 33.3% of courses were unsuccessful (19/57). Bleeding from multiple sites was associated with treatment failure. In 16.7% of patients (11/66), unexpected adverse thromboses developed within 1 week of completing a course of rFVIIa. Thromboses in both intra- and extra-corporeal sites were included if they compromised patient care.
conclusionsIn the majority of cases reviewed, rFVIIa was successful in stopping or slowing serious bleeding episodes. It was least effective when a patient had diffuse bleeding at the time of administration. The thrombosis rate of 16.7% was higher than expected, though causality cannot be declared. Further investigation is needed to determine the risk-benefit ratio in children.
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.