INTRODUCTION: The primary treatment for mild-to-moderate bleeding disorders in hemophilia is either recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) or activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC). The efficacy of both products has been evaluated in individual studies; however, there has not been an overall review to compare the efficacy from these individual studies of rFVIIa and aPCC. Our aim is to establish robust estimates of the efficacy, speed of bleed resolution, and adverse event profile of both rFVIIa and aPCC. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of the relevant literature. RESULTS: We identified 11 open-label cohort studies, six randomized clinical trials, including two head-to-head clinical trials, and a meta-analysis. The definition of efficacy varies between these studies, but is usually a composite measure of definite pain relief, reduction in the size of the hemorrhage, and cessation of bleeding. The individual making the interpretation of efficacy and the time from treatment initiation to recording the efficacy endpoint also varies across the studies. Overall, estimates of efficacy from randomized clinical trials using dosing regimens in line with the guidelines are higher for rFVIIa (81%-91%) than for aPCC (64%-80%). Conclusions from a meta-analysis suggest that treatment with rFVIIa may be associated with a faster time to joint bleed resolution than aPCC due to higher efficacy levels at different time points. The results from a comparative trial support the improved efficacy rates associated with rFVIIa compared with aPCC. CONCLUSION: The wide variations in definitions of efficacy and study methods make comparison of results across studies difficult. Further head-to-head trials should incorporate a standardized measurement for defining efficacy.
INTRODUCTION: The primary treatment for mild-to-moderate bleeding disorders in hemophilia is either recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) or activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC). The efficacy of both products has been evaluated in individual studies; however, there has not been an overall review to compare the efficacy from these individual studies of rFVIIa and aPCC. Our aim is to establish robust estimates of the efficacy, speed of bleed resolution, and adverse event profile of both rFVIIa and aPCC. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of the relevant literature. RESULTS: We identified 11 open-label cohort studies, six randomized clinical trials, including two head-to-head clinical trials, and a meta-analysis. The definition of efficacy varies between these studies, but is usually a composite measure of definite pain relief, reduction in the size of the hemorrhage, and cessation of bleeding. The individual making the interpretation of efficacy and the time from treatment initiation to recording the efficacy endpoint also varies across the studies. Overall, estimates of efficacy from randomized clinical trials using dosing regimens in line with the guidelines are higher for rFVIIa (81%-91%) than for aPCC (64%-80%). Conclusions from a meta-analysis suggest that treatment with rFVIIa may be associated with a faster time to joint bleed resolution than aPCC due to higher efficacy levels at different time points. The results from a comparative trial support the improved efficacy rates associated with rFVIIa compared with aPCC. CONCLUSION: The wide variations in definitions of efficacy and study methods make comparison of results across studies difficult. Further head-to-head trials should incorporate a standardized measurement for defining efficacy.
Authors: Keith Gomez; Robert Klamroth; Johnny Mahlangu; Maria E Mancuso; María E Mingot; Margareth Castro Ozelo Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Mirko Di Capua; Antonio Coppola; Assunta Nardo; Ernesto Cimino; Matteo N D Di Minno; Antonella Tufano; Rosaria Mormile; Maria L Burzo; Giovanni Di Minno; Anna M Cerbone Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 3.443