Abstract
Purpose
Recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) is a pro-hemostatic drug that is approved for treatment of bleeding in hemophilia patients, but it is frequently used off-label in non-hemophiliacs. The purpose of this study was to determine if the off-label use of rFVIIa is expanding and whether this poses a net harm to patients.
Methods
For this historical cohort study, data were collected on all non-hemophilia patients who received rFVIIa from 2007 to 2010 at 16 Canadian centres, and the pattern of use was examined. Logistic regression was used to determine the prognostic importance of severity of bleeding and the presence of an rFVIIa dose-effect relationship with major adverse events.
Results
One thousand three hundred seventy-eight patients received rFVIIa off-label, and 987 (72%) of these patients underwent cardiac surgery. The median [interquartile range] dose was 57 [36-85] µg·kg−1. Usage increased from 2007 to 2008 (n = 341 and 380, respectively) but decreased in 2009 and 2010 (n = 350 and 307, respectively). Dose of rFVIIa and bleeding severity were associated with measured adverse events (P < 0.05). After adjusting for bleeding severity, dose was not associated with any of the adverse events.
Conclusions
The off-label use of rFVIIa in Canada remains stable. Since severity of bleeding is prognostically important, the benefits of rapidly gaining control of bleeding that is non-responsive to conventional therapies may at times warrant the use of potent hemostatic drugs with established risk profiles, such as rFVIIa.
Résumé
Objectif
Le facteur VII activé recombinant (rFVIIa) est un médicament prohémostatique approuvé pour le traitement des saignements chez les patients hémophiles, mais qui est fréquemment utilisé hors indication chez des patients non-hémophiles. L’objectif de cette étude était de déterminer si l’utilisation hors indications du rFVIIa est en progression et si cela pose un risque net pour les patients.
Méthodes
Pour cette étude de cohorte historique, des données ont été collectées sur tous les patients non-hémophiles qui ont reçu du rFVIIa entre 2007 et 2010 dans 16 centres canadiens et le profil d’utilisation a été examiné. Une régression logistique a servi à déterminer l’importance pronostique de la sévérité du saignement et la présence d’une relation dose effet du rFVIIa avec les principaux événements indésirables.
Résultats
Mille trois cent soixante-dix-huit patients ont reçu du rFVIIa hors indication et 987 d’entre eux (72 %) ont subi une chirurgie cardiaque. La dose médiane [intervalle interquartile] était de 57 [36-85] µg·kg−1. L’utilisation a augmenté de 2007 à 2008 (respectivement, n = 341 et 380), mais a diminué en 2009 et 2010 (respectivement, n = 350 et 307). La dose de rFVIIa et la sévérité des saignements ont été associées aux événements indésirables mesurés (P < 0,05). Après ajustement pour la sévérité des saignements, la dose n’était associée à aucun des événements indésirables.
Conclusions
L’utilisation hors indication du rFVIIa au Canada reste stable. Dans la mesure où la sévérité des saignements a une importance pronostique, les avantages qu’apporte le contrôle rapide d’une hémorragie qui ne répond pas aux traitements conventionnels peuvent, occasionnellement, justifier l’utilisation de médicaments hémostatiques puissants avec des profils de risque connus, tels que le rFVIIa.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In 1999, Health Canada approved the use of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa; Niastase; Novo Nordisk, Mississauga, ON, Canada), a hemostatic drug, for the treatment of bleeding episodes in hemophilia patients with inhibitors to factor VIII or IX.Footnote 1 It was soon found to be useful for controlling bleeding in non-hemophilia patients,1,2 and since approval, it has been increasingly used off-label in various clinical settings, e.g., for refractory bleeding in cardiac surgery.3-5 A recent review of its use in hospitals across the United States found that the off-label use of rFVIIa increased by approximately 140-fold from 2000 to 2008, whereas its use for approved indications increased by only fourfold.3
This off-label use has been the focus of some controversy. On the one hand, although rFVIIa may decrease blood loss and blood transfusion, opponents emphasize that there is no evidence of a mortality benefit and its administration carries thrombotic risks, possibly in a dose-dependent manner. Thus, they have proposed that its off-label use should be confined to clinical trials.6-9 On the other hand, proponents counter that judicious use of rFVIIa outside hemophilia is warranted when the risk-benefit profile is favourable, such as in life-threatening coagulopathy after surgery or trauma.10-15 In either case, the “runaway” increase in the off-label use of rFVIIa in United States hospitals is disconcerting, as it would suggest that the drug is being used outside the select group of patients in whom its benefits may potentially outweigh its thrombotic risks. Whether the pattern of off-label use is similar in Canada, however, is not known. A focused review of the off-label use of rFVIIa in cardiac surgery at 18 Canadian hospitals found that its off-label use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2007. This increase was attributed to the late adoption at some centres for treatment of refractory hemorrhage.4 To determine the general pattern of off-label use in Canada since 2007, we conducted a comprehensive patient-level review of all off-label use of rFVIIa in non-hemophilia patients in surgical and non-surgical settings at 16 Canadian hospitals from 2007 to 2010. Additional objectives of this observational study were to explore the relationship between rFVIIa dose response and severity of bleeding and their relationships with major adverse events.
Methods
This was a historical cohort study. Investigators at 25 large Canadian hospitals were approached for participation; 16 agreed to participate and were included (Appendix). Institutional research ethics board approval was obtained at each participating hospital, all of which waived the need for informed consent. The blood bank or pharmacy database at each hospital was used to obtain a list of every patient who had received rFVIIa from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010.
Using a standardized data collection form, detailed data were retrospectively collected from medical records for all patients who had received rFVIIa while in hospital. Patients with hemophilia were excluded. Data were entered directly into a web-based database with built-in logic controls. Variables collected included patient demographics, comorbidities, hemodynamic and laboratory data, blood product transfusions (up to 24 hr before and after first dose of rFVIIa), indications for and dose of rFVIIa, as well as in-hospital (up to 30 days after therapy) major adverse events. Adverse events were obtained from patients’ clinical notes, discharge forms, death certificates, and autopsy reports where available. Major adverse events were divided into those likely to be thrombotic or non-thrombotic in nature. Stroke, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, gut ischemia, limb ischemia, and myocardial infarction were classified into the thrombotic adverse events subgroup for analysis. Renal failure requiring dialysis, sepsis, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, and cardiac arrest were classified into the non-thrombotic adverse events subgroup for analysis. Mortality was analyzed separately. The total number of red blood cells transfused within 24 hr of rFVIIa therapy was used as a surrogate measure for overall bleeding severity.
Statistical analysis
SAS™ version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for the statistical analysis. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages and continuous variables as medians and interquartile ranges. As an indirect measure of effectiveness, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the amount of transfusions before and after rFVIIa therapy (data were collected for up to 24 hr before and after therapy). Only patients who underwent cardiac surgery were used in this analysis to provide for a more homogeneous sample of patients in whom rFVIIa was administered in response to postoperative bleeding.
The association between dose of rFVIIa (per kg) and severity of bleeding was measured with the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. For missing weight values, the gender-specific sample mean value was used. Dose of rFVIIa and severity of bleeding were categorized into quartiles, and their relationships with measured adverse events were assessed using the Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test. Multivariable logistic regression that controlled for severity of bleeding was used to determine the dose effect of rFVIIa on adverse events. The dose analyses were repeated after excluding patients with missing weight values, after excluding patients who received rFVIIa for non-surgical indications, and using the total dose rather than the weight-based dose.
Results
At the 16 participating hospitals, 1,378 patients received rFVIIa (median 87 patients, range 4-245 patients). Dosing data were missing in 11 patients, and these patients were excluded from the relevant analyses. The median [interquartile range] dose of rFVIIa (after imputing missing weight data in 106 patients) was 57 [36-85] µg·kg−1. Based on this distribution, patients were classified into quartiles as follows: < 36 µg·kg−1 (n = 352), 36-57 µg·kg−1 (n = 329), > 57 and < 85 µg·kg−1 (n = 352), and ≥ 85 µg·kg−1 (n = 334). Overall, 906 patients (66%) received a single dose of rFVIIa, 369 (27%) received two doses, 70 (5%) received three doses, 19 (1%) received four doses, and five (0.4%) received more than four doses. There was no discernible change in the amount or number of doses administered during the study period (data not shown).
The number of patients who received rFVIIa increased slightly from 2007 to 2008 but decreased thereafter (Fig. 1). Cardiac surgery was the indication for 72% of the cases (n = 987/1,378), increasing from 60% of the cases in 2007 (n = 201/341) to 81% in 2010 (n = 247/307) (Fig. 1). Of the 131 patients (10%) who received rFVIIa for non-surgical indications, 58 (44%) received it for intra-cerebral hemorrhage, 26 (20%) for reversal of warfarin, 24 (18%) for gastrointestinal bleed, and 12 (9%) for disseminated intravascular coagulation. Overall, the cohort consisted of high-risk patients (older, multiple comorbidities, high rate of catastrophic events, and requiring hemodynamic support prior to rFVIIa therapy) who had major blood loss (as measured by number of transfusions) and a high rate of adverse events (Table 1). There were no discernible changes in patient characteristics during the study period (data not shown). Coagulation tests conducted during the hour before rFVIIa therapy were, on average, not severely deranged, but test results were not available for many of the patients (Table 1). Comparing the amount of transfusions before and after rFVIIa therapy in patients who underwent cardiac surgery, we found that transfusions were substantially lower after rFVIIa therapy (Table 2).
The total dose of rFVIIa and bleeding severity in the entire cohort were correlated with each other (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.24; P < 0.0001), and adverse events generally increased in direct proportion to the increasing dose and bleeding severity (Figs. 2 and 3). After adjusting for bleeding severity, which remained directly related to adverse events, there was no dose-effect relationship between rFVIIa and any of the major adverse events (Fig. 4). The results were similar when patients with missing weight were excluded, when patients who received rFVIIa for non-surgical indications were excluded, or when total rather than weight-based dosing was used in the analyses (data not shown).
Discussion
In this comprehensive four-year Canadian review, we found that the overall off-label use of rFVIIa in non-hemophilia patients remained relatively stable over the study period. We also found that rFVIIa was primarily and increasingly used in the setting of bleeding after cardiac surgery. The absolute use of rFVIIa for cardiac surgery increased to such an extent during the study period that it represented over 80% of usage during the last year of the study. We also found that major adverse events in the entire cohort were strongly related to the severity of bleeding rather than to the dose of rFVIIa.
One of the main concerns about rFVIIa are reports that its off-label use has been rapidly expanding since initial approval for treatment of bleeding episodes in hemophilia patients. This has led to calls for its manufacturer to be investigated for promoting the misuse of the drug.7 Our study, however, found that the overall off-label use of rFVIIa from 2007 to 2010 did not expand in Canada (although there was a change in pattern of usage with increased use in cardiac surgery). This finding is not consistent with the experience in United States hospitals where there was a 140-fold increase in the off-label use of rFVIIa from 2000 to 2008, with no indication of abatement in the latter years.3 While our study did not capture all rFVIIa use across Canada, the results are corroborated by the reduction in rFVIIa issued by the Canadian Blood Services (CBS; the supplier of the drug to all Canadian provinces except Quebec) from 2008 to 2011.8 As reported in the recent review by Lin et al.,8 the total amount of rFVIIa issued by the CBS reached a plateau of just over 32,000 mg during 2007 and 2008 and then gradually declined to about 27,000 mg in 2011. Assuming that the on-label use remained constant, this would imply that the off-label use decreased from 2008 to 2011. Our finding of reduced off-label use is not unique. A large (n = 3,314) registry that reported on all off-label use of rFVIIa at Australian and New Zealand hospitals from 2000 to 2009 also found a slight reduction in the use of the drug from 2006 to 2009.Footnote 2 It seems, therefore, that the concern about the “runaway” use of rFVIIa in off-label settings7 is not warranted, at least outside of the United States.
Another important finding of our study is that rFVIIa was primarily and increasingly used in the setting of severe bleeding in cardiac surgery where, in many cases, the bleeding was not responsive to standard therapy (as reflected by the relatively normal coagulation tests before rFVIIa therapy). Unlike most other off-label settings, cardiac surgery is an area for which the use of rFVIIa is supported by several observational studies and recommended in the setting of non-responsive bleeding.4,12,16-19 As in previous studies in cardiac surgery where the amount of transfusions before and after rFVIIa therapy was used as an indirect measure of effectiveness,4 we also found that the amount of transfusions in cardiac surgical patients was substantially lower after therapy than before therapy (Table 2). While this analysis is confounded by time (i.e., all bleeding eventually stops) and cannot prove causation, it is suggestive that rFVIIa may contribute to this bleeding cessation.
Another major concern with the off-label use of rFVIIa is its propensity to increase the risk of thrombotic adverse events in non-hemophilia patients without any clear benefit in reducing mortality. This has led to the recommendation that its off-label use be curtailed.8 It has also been argued, however, that the judicious off-label use of rFVIIa may be reasonable in patients who develop severe coagulopathic bleeding that is non-responsive to conventional therapies.10-15,18,19 The basis for this argument is primarily because rapid control of bleeding is crucial for reducing poor outcomes in this setting and because there is increasing evidence (albeit primarily from observational studies) that rFVIIa may achieve this objective.4,11 This latter argument is supported by this study’s finding that the rate of adverse events in the entire cohort was strongly related to bleeding severity, to such an extent that the relationship dwarfed any potential risks attributable to the dose of rFVIIa. Further in support of this argument, the Australian and New Zealand registry on the off-label use of rFVIIa found a clear relationship between lack of response to rFVIIa and mortality. Specifically, analyzing data from over 2,500 patients, they found that 62% (n = 479/771) of patients who did not respond to rFVIIa died, whereas only 20% (n = 363/1,818) of those who did respond died (P < 0.001).A
Our study has several important limitations. First, a large number of data are missing for some variables, and there is the potential for inaccurate or incomplete data collection. To ensure that serious adverse events were accurately captured, we limited our data collection to adverse events that were expected to be recorded accurately in patients’ records. Moreover, we had to use surrogate measures for some important variables, such as severity of bleeding, and could not capture some other important variables, such as the reasons for dose selection. Second, as this was a historical cohort study, causation cannot be proven. Third, as this was a registry, we had access only to data on patients who received rFVIIa. Lacking a control group, the study was not equipped to determine the association of rFVIIa therapy itself with outcomes. Thus, only the dose-response relationship between rFVIIa and measured outcomes could be explored. Fourth, the study was sponsored by the makers of rFVIIa, which may have introduced bias; however, the support was through an unrestricted grant and the sponsor had no input into the conduct of the study, the analysis of the results, or the writing of the manuscript.
In conclusion, this registry showed that the off-label use of rFVIIa in Canada remained relatively stable over a four-year period from 2007 to 2010 (although there was an absolute increase in its use in cardiac surgery). We also found that major adverse events in patients receiving rFVIIa were related to the severity of bleeding and not to the dose of rFVIIa. These findings add credence to the argument that use of potent hemostatic agents, such as rFVIIa, to gain rapid control of bleeding that is non-responsive to conventional therapies may at times be warranted.
Notes
See product monograph. Available from URL: http://www.novonordisk.ca/PDF_Files/NiaStase.pdf (accessed April 2014).
Haemostasis Registry Final Report. Ten years of data on the use of recombinant activated factor VII in Australia and New Zealand. Available from URL: http://www.calembeena.com.au/HR_Final%20Report.pdf (accessed April 2014).
References
Lloyd JV, Joist JH. Recombinant factor VIIa: a universal hemostatic agent? Curr Hematol Rep 2002; 1: 19-26.
Hedner U, Erhardtsen E. Potential role for rFVIIa in transfusion medicine. Transfusion 2002; 42: 114-24.
Logan AC, Yank V, Stafford RS. Off-label use of recombinant factor VIIa in U.S. hospitals: analysis of hospital records. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 516-22.
Karkouti K, Beattie WS, Arellano R, et al. Comprehensive Canadian review of the off-label use of recombinant activated factor VII in cardiac surgery. Circulation 2008; 118: 331-8.
Isbister J, Phillips L, Dunkley S, Jankelowitz G, McNeil J, Cameron P. Recombinant activated factor VII in critical bleeding: experience from the Australian and New Zealand Haemostasis Register. Intern Med J 2008; 38: 156-65.
Yank V, Tuohy CV, Logan AC, et al. Systematic review: benefits and harms of in-hospital use of recombinant factor VIIa for off-label indications. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 529-40.
Avorn J, Kesselheim A. A hemorrhage of off-label use. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 566-7.
Lin Y, Moltzan CJ, Anderson DR, National Advisory Committee on Blood and Blood Products. The evidence for the use of recombinant factor VIIa in massive bleeding: revision of the transfusion policy framework. Transfus Med 2012; 22: 383-94.
Mayer SA, Brun NC, Begtrup K, et al. Efficacy and safety of recombinant activated factor VII for acute intracerebral hemorrhage. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2127-37.
Roberts HR, Monroe DM, White GC. The use of recombinant factor VIIa in the treatment of bleeding disorders. Blood 2004; 104: 3858-64.
Karkouti K, Levy JH. Recombinant activated factor VII: the controversial conundrum regarding its off-label use. Anesth Analg 2011; 113: 711-2.
Karkouti K, Beattie WS, Crowther MA, et al. The role of recombinant factor VIIa in on-pump cardiac surgery: proceedings of the Canadian Consensus Conference. Can J Anesth 2007; 54: 573-82.
Sorour Y, Van Veen JJ, Makris M. Recombinant factor VIIa for unlicensed indications—a definite No or a cautious Maybe in selected patients? Int J Clin Pract 2010; 64: 1468-71.
Guzzetta NA, Russell IA, Williams GD. Review of the off-label use of recombinant activated factor VII in pediatric cardiac surgery patients. Anesth Analg 2012; 115: 364-78.
Spahn DR, Bouillon B, Cerny V, et al. Management of bleeding and coagulopathy following major trauma: an updated European guideline. Crit Care 2013; 17: R76.
Karkouti K, Beattie WS, Wijeysundera DN, et al. Recombinant factor VIIa for intractable blood loss after cardiac surgery: a propensity-score matched case-control analysis. Transfusion 2005; 45: 26-34.
Andersen ND, Bhattacharya SD, Williams JB, et al. Intraoperative use of low-dose recombinant activated factor VII during thoracic aortic operations. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93: 1921-8.
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Blood Conservation Guideline Task Force; Ferraris VA, Ferraris SP, Saha SP, et al.; Perioperative blood transfusion and blood conservation in cardiac surgery: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists clinical practice guideline. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83: S27-S86.
Menkis AH, Martin J, Cheng DC, et al. Drug, devices, technologies, and techniques for blood management in minimally invasive and conventional cardiothoracic surgery: a consensus statement from the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2011. Innovations (Phila) 2012; 7: 229-41.
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Jo Carroll, Siroos Hozhabri, and Gordon Tait, without whom this study would not have been possible.
Funding
The registry was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk had no input into the conduct or analysis of the study. They received the manuscript prior to submission but had no input into the writing of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Financial disclosures
Keyvan Karkouti is funded in part by a merit award from the Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON and has received research support from Novo Nordisk.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Author contributions
All authors have made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study as well as to the acquisition and interpretation of data. Keyvan Karkouti conducted the analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors took part in manuscript revision.
Appendix: Participating sites and research ethics board (REB) identification number and approval date
Appendix: Participating sites and research ethics board (REB) identification number and approval date
Sites | REB Approval Date |
---|---|
Foothills Medical Centre Calgary, AB | Ethics ID: E-21780 July 17, 2008 |
Hamilton Health Sciences Hamilton, ON | Ethics ID: 08-333c July 14, 2008 |
Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal Montréal, QC | Ethics ID: NA September 8, 2008 |
Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec Québec City, QC | Ethics ID: 20408 March 31, 2009 |
Kingston General Hospital Kingston, ON | Ethics ID: ANAE-145-08 September 5, 2008 |
London Health Science Centre, University Hospital London, ON | Ethics ID: 15190E May 30, 2008 |
Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Centre Halifax, NS | Ethics ID: CDHA -RS/2011-057 June 30, 2010 |
St. Boniface General Hospital Winnipeg, MB | Ethics ID: H2008:227 October 7, 2008 |
St. Mary’s Regional Cardiac Care Centre, Kitchener, ON | Ethics ID: 08-199 January 15, 2009 |
St. Michael’s Hospital Toronto, ON | Ethics ID: 08-286c November 4, 2008 |
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre Toronto, ON | Ethics ID: 490-2008 January 30, 2009 |
Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga Hospital Mississauga, ON | Ethics ID: 420 April 16, 2010 |
University Health Network (Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital) Toronto, ON | Ethics ID: 07-0890-BE January 30, 2008 |
University of Manitoba Health Sciences Centre Winnipeg, MB | Ethics ID: H2008:227 August 25, 2008 |
University of Ottawa Heart Institute Ottawa, ON | Ethics ID: 2008588-01H September 5, 2008 |
Vancouver General Hospital Vancouver, BC | Ethics ID: H08-02577 July 7, 2009 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karkouti, K., Arellano, R., Aye, T. et al. Off-label use of recombinant activated factor VII in surgical and non-surgical patients at 16 Canadian hospitals from 2007 to 2010 (Canadian Registry Report). Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 61, 727–735 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-014-0184-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-014-0184-z