ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Real World Experience with use of Coagulation Factor VIIa at an Academic Medical Center.
Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundEptacog alfa and eptacog beta are recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) agents approved for use in hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. Our institution converted from eptacog alfa to eptacog beta as the preferred rFVIIa product. The objective of this medication use evaluation was to review the utilization of both agents and cost savings associated with the conversion.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review for all eptacog alfa and beta administrations from October 2023 through September 2024. We evaluated product selection and dosing as well as the occurrence of thrombosis, new bleeding events, or existing bleeding that required therapy escalation. Cost savings were estimated using wholesale acquisition costs.ResultsThere were 17 patients that required 27 admissions for rFVIIa (eptacog alfa: 3, 11.1% and eptacog beta: 21, 77.8%). Three administrations (11.1%) utilized both agents. Indications included bleeding in hemophilia patients (12, 44.4%), followed by peri-procedural management (9, 33.3%), cardiac surgery (3, 11.1%), and anticoagulation reversal for life-threatening bleeding (3, 11.1%). There were 21 administrations in which eptacog beta was exclusively used (bleeding in hemophilia A (9, 33.3%), peri-procedural management (7, 25.9%), cardiac surgery (2, 7.4%), and anticoagulation reversal (3, 11.1%)). There were no thrombotic events. There were 5 patients (18.5%) who required rFVIIa dose escalation and two (7.4%) who required re-initiation of rFVIIa. Cost avoidance was estimated at $554,400 over a 12-month period.ConclusionWe treated a small cohort of patients with eptacog beta without adverse outcomes. Other hospitals might evaluate their rFVIIa use and consider opportunities for substitution.
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.