Background: We recently demonstrated that recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) given to patients presenting within 3 h of acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) reduces mortality (18% vs. 29%) and poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS, 4–6, 53 vs. 69%). This analysis was performed to determine the impact of rFVIIa on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in those patients. Methods: In a prospective, randomized controlled trial, 399 patients (mean age, 66 years) received placebo, 40, 80 or 160 µg/kg of rFVIIa within 4 h of acute ICH. At 90 days, HRQoL was assessed with the EuroQoL (EQ-5D), a 5-dimensional measure of health which also includes the Visual Analogue Scale. Additionally, each level of the 90-day mRS was adjusted, using 4 different previously published utility values, to obtain a clearer picture of perceived HRQoL. Results: Among the 5 dimensions of EQ-5D, only mobility rating was significantly better for rFVIIa-treated patients (serious problems, 34 vs. 54%; p = 0.01). Yet, the utility value (scaled 1.0 = perfect health and 0.0 = dead) associated with the composite EQ-5D demonstrated significantly better HRQoL (0.48 vs. 0.36; p = 0.01). This was also true for the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale score (44 vs. 36; p = 0.04). Finally, all 4 algorithms for applying utility scores to the mRS indicated that rFVIIa was associated with significantly better perceived HRQoL (all p < 0.006). Conclusions: Treatment with rFVIIa within 4 h of acute spontaneous ICH improves HRQoL.

Keywords:
Intracerebral hemorrhage, Quality of life, Recombinant factor VIIa
1.
Straten van A, Reitsma JB, Limburg M, Bos van den GAM: Impact of stroke type on survival and functional health. Cerebrovasc Dis 2001;12:27–33.
2.
Schlote A, Richter M, Frank B, Wallesch CW: A longitudinal study of health-related quality of life of first stroke survivors’ close relatives. Cerebrovasc Dis 2006;22:137–142.
3.
Visser-Meily A, Post M, Schepers V, Lindeman E: Spouses’ quality of life 1 year after stroke: prediction at the start of clinical rehabilitation. Cerebrovasc Dis 2005;20:443–448.
4.
Broderick J, Brott T, Tomsick T, Miller R, Huster G: Intracerebral hemorrhage is more than twice as common as subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Neurosurg 1993;78:188–191.
5.
Mayer SA, Brun NC, Begtrup K, Broderick J, Davis S, Diringer MN, Skolnick BE, Steiner T: Recombinant activated factor VII for acute intracerebral hemorrhage. N Engl J Med 2005;352:777–785.
6.
Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P: Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke 1997;28:1876–1882.
7.
Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F (eds): The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective: Evidence from the EuroHRQL BIO MED Research Programme. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, 2003.
8.
Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ: US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D2 valuation model (2005). Med Care 2005;43:203–220.
9.
Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, Graf von der Schulenburg JM: Validating the EQ-5D with time-trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2004, E-pub ahead of print.
10.
Samsa GP, Matchar DB, Goldstein L, Bonito A, Duncan PW, Lipscomb J, Enarson C, Witter D, Venus P, Paul JE, Weinberger M: Utilities for major stroke: results from a survey of preferences among persons at increased risk for stroke. Am Heart J 1998;136:703–713.
11.
Gage BF, Cardinali AB, Owens DK: The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1829–1836.
12.
Stahl JE, Furie KL, Gleason S, Gazelle GS: Stroke: effect of implementing an evaluation and treatment protocol compliant with NINDS recommendations. Radiology 2003;228:659–668.
13.
Solomon NA, Glick HA, Russo CJ, Lee J, Schulman KA: Patient preferences for stroke outcomes. Stroke 1994;25:1721–1725.
14.
McCullagh P: Regression models for ordinal data. J R Stat Soc 1980B;43:109–142.
15.
Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ: Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med Care 2005;43:1078–1086.
16.
Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D: Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:141–155.
17.
Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, ed 2. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
18.
Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH: Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005;14:207–219.
19.
Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–1108.
20.
Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP: The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001;32:1425–1429.
21.
Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q: Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996;34:702–722.
22.
Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M: Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 1997;28:1541–1549.
23.
Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P: Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate and unbiased? Stroke 1997;28:1883–1887.
24.
Jönsson A-C, Lindgren I, Hallström B, Norrving B, Lindgren A: Determinants of quality of life in stroke survivors and their informal care givers. Stroke 2005;36:803–808.
25.
Hackett ML, Duncan JR, Anderson CS, Broad JB, Bonita R: Health-related quality of life among long-term survivors of stroke: results from the Auckland Stroke Study, 1991–1992. Stroke 2000;31:440–447.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
2007
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.