| Title |
Recombinant Factor VIIa concentrate versus plasma derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004449.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Iorio A, Matino D, D'Amico R, Makris M, Iorio, Alfonso, Matino, Davide, D'Amico, Roberto, Makris, Michael, Iorio A; Matino D; D'Amico R; Makris M |
| Abstract |
In people with haemophilia, therapeutic clotting agents might be recognised as a foreign protein and induce anti-FVIII antibodies, known as 'inhibitors'. Drugs insensitive to such antibodies, either recombinant or plasma-derived, are called factor VIII "by-passing" agents and used for treatment of bleeding in people with inhibitors. To determine the clinical effectiveness of recombinant FVIIa concentrate in comparison to plasma-derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Coagulopathies Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 07 July 2010. Randomised (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing recombinant FVIIa concentrate (rFVIIa) to human plasma-derived concentrates (high-dose human or recombinant FVIII or FIX concentrate; prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs); activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC)) in persons with haemophilia. Comparisons with animal derived products were excluded. Two authors independently assessed trials (eligibility and risk of bias) and extracted data. No meta-analysis was performed due to unavailability of outcomes and comparisons common to the included studies. A total of ten trials were identified, two of which (total of 69 participants) were eligible for analysis. Both trials showed methodological flaws and did not show superiority of one treatment over the other. Both the treatments showed that (rFVIIa and aPCC appeared to have a similar haemostatic effect in both studies, without increasing thromboembolic risk. Although the main conclusion should be the need for further randomised controlled trials, we conclude that both rFVIIa and aPCC can be used to treat bleeding in haemophiliacs with inhibitors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 37% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 26% |
| Unknown | 2 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 52% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2013.
All research outputs
#5,905,733
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,678
of 12,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,733
of 94,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#41
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.