The safety of recombinant factor VIIa: a rebuttal

J. Teitel,M. Poon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00974.x

2004-11-01

Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Abstract:The review article by Abshire and Kenet provides valuable perspective on the clinical role of recombinant factor (rF)VIIa [1]. rFVIIa is effective and safe for the treatment of acute hemorrhage in the presence of autoantibodies or alloantibodies to factor VIII or IX, as well as in other bleeding disorders such as congenital FVII deficiency. The authors appropriately identify thrombosis as an uncommon but important adverse effect of rFVIIa therapy. However, by emphasizing the paucity of spontaneous reports of thrombotic events postlicensure, they may be inadvertently leading readers to underestimate this complication. In the absence of an active and systematic surveillance program, spontaneous adverse event reporting provides only qualitative information about the nature of drugrelated events. Passive reporting cannot be used to draw inferences regarding actual incidence. More reliable incidence estimates could be derived from clinical trials which are designed in such a way as to capture such events. In this regard, Abshire and Kenet describe seven thrombotic events in clinical trials, but they do not provide denominators; in order to be meaningful these denominators must be reported as the number of study subjects at risk in addition to the number of standard doses administered. To arrive at a reliable estimate of the incidence of thrombotic complications it would be valuable to analyze the safety results of all preand postlicensure clinical trials of rFVIIa for both approved and emerging indications. This is increasingly important asmany physicians and surgeons are beginning to look upon rFVIIa as a universal hemostatic agent [2] for both young and older patients with a variety of bleeding syndromes. These practitioners rely on the literature for guidance on the efficacy and safety of rFVIIa, even if this literature is derived largely from inhibitor studies. Based on information shared freely by the manufacturer at various meetings in recent years, it seems likely that the seven events shown in Abshire and Kenet’s Table 2 do not represent all the thrombotic complications that occurred in clinical trials of rFVIIa. Finally, while we agree with Abshire and Kenet’s general conclusion that thrombosis is an uncommon complication of therapy with rFVIIa, the statement that in inhibitor patients this risk appears to be lower than the thrombotic risk seen with other clotting factor concentrates with known thrombogenic potential is not supported by available data.