Use of recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without hemophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of off-label use of recombinant factor VIIa in patients without hemophilia are contested. We performed a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of such use. METHODS: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials comparing recombinant factor VIIa with placebo in any patient population except those with hemophilia up to January 2010. Eligible articles were assessed for inclusion, data were extracted, and study quality was evaluated. Outcomes included mortality, blood loss, requirements for red blood cell transfusion, number of patients transfused and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: We identified 26 trials: 14 on off-label prophylactic use of recombinant factor VIIa (n = 1137) and 12 on off-label therapeutic use (n = 2538). In the studies on prophylactic use, we found no significant difference in mortality or thromboembolic events between the treatment and placebo groups. We found modest benefits favouring recombinant factor VIIa in blood loss (weighted mean difference -276 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] -411 to -141 mL), red blood cell transfusion (weighted mean difference -281 mL, 95% CI -433 to -129 mL) and number of patients transfused (relative risk 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99). In the therapeutic trials, we found a nonsignificant decrease in mortality and a nonsignificant increase in thromboembolic events but no difference in control of bleeding or red blood cell transfusion. INTERPRETATION: Clinically significant benefits of recombinant factor VIIa as a general hemostatic agent in patients without hemophilia remain unproven. Given its potential risks, such use cannot be recommended, and in most cases, it should be restricted to clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".