Dataset Information

Comparison of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for emergent warfarin reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal (EWR) have been prescribed three-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC3) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC4) to reverse the anticoagulant effects of warfarin. There is no existing systematic review and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing PCC3 and PCC4.

Methods

The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of achieving study defined target INR goal after PCC3 or PCC4 administration. Secondary objectives were to determine the difference in safety endpoints, thromboembolic events (TE), and survival during the patients' hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR), and heterogeneity associated with the outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

Results

Ten full-text manuscripts and five abstracts provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Patients requiring EWR had more than three times the odds of reversal to goal INR when they were given PCC4 compared to PCC3 (OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 1.97-6.60, p < 0.001). There was no meaningful clinical association or statistically significant result between PCC4 and PCC3 groups in TE (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.83-2.91, p = 0.17), or survival during hospital stay (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.81-2.23, p = 0.25).

Conclusion

PCC4 is more effective than PCC3 in meeting specific predefined INR goals and has similar safety profiles in patients requiring emergent reversal of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin.

SUBMITTER: Margraf DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8785536 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Mortality of oral anticoagulation-associated ICH is around 60%, with oral anticoagulation increasing the risk of ICH seven to ten-fold compared to no anticoagulation. Current guidelines recommend DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants) as first-line therapy in the treatment of VTE (Venous Thromboembolism) due to their more favorable safety profile. There are two agents available for DOAC reversal, Coagulation Factor Xa (recombinant), inactivated-zhzo (andexanet alfa, Andexxa®) and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4FPCC). There is little data comparing the two agents in real-life clinical settings.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to determine if there was a difference in hemostatic efficacy of andexanet alfa and 4FPCC in patients with a factor Xa inhibitor-related intracranial hemorrhage.MethodsThis was a retrospective, single-center study conducted in adult patients admitted at a quaternary academic medical center from September 2017 to March 2021. Adults with a diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were included if they received either 4FPCC or andexanet alfa for reversal of apixaban or rivaroxaban. In addition to hemostatic efficacy per imaging, we assessed disposition location, cerebral performance score, blood product consumption, and the development of a new thrombus.ResultsA total of 46 patients were included in this study, 15 received 4FPCC (32%) and 31 received andexanet alfa (68%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients with excellent (4FPCC 9 [60%] vs. andexanet alfa 16 [51.6%], p = 0.61), good (4FPCC 2 [13.3%] vs. andexanet alfa 7 [22.6%]), or poor (4FPCC 1 [6.7%] vs. andexanet alfa 5 [16.1%]) hemostasis after administration of each agent. There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes.Conclusion and relevanceOur study found no difference in hemostatic efficacy between andexanet alfa and 4FPCC. At this time, clinicians should choose an agent based on individual patient presentation and resource availability. Further research will help clarify the role of each agent in the management of DOAC-related intracranial hemorrhage.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Clinicians often need to rapidly reverse vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the setting of major hemorrhage or urgent need for surgery. Little is known about the safety profile of the traditional reversal agent, plasma, or the newly approved agent, four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC), in a randomized setting. This is an integrated analysis of safety data from two clinical trials that evaluated 4F-PCC versus plasma for the treatment of patients requiring rapid VKA reversal for acute major bleeding or prior to an urgent surgical/invasive procedure. METHODS:This descriptive analysis comprised adverse event (AE) data from two phase IIIb, randomized, controlled trials. The bleeding and surgical studies were performed across 36 and 33 sites, respectively, in nine countries, with the integrated analysis comprising 388 patients (4F-PCC, n = 191; plasma, n = 197) aged ? 18 years, who required VKA reversal due to major bleeding or prior to an urgent surgical/invasive procedure. Patients received either 4F-PCC, containing nonactivated factors II, VII, IX, and X and proteins C and S (Beriplex/Kcentra, CSL Behring) or plasma, both dosed according to baseline international normalized ratio and body weight. Patients were also to receive vitamin K1. AEs and serious AEs (SAEs) were assessed up to days 10 and 45, respectively. RESULTS:The proportion of patients with AEs (4F-PCC, 115/191 [60.2%]; plasma, 124/197 [62.9%]) and SAEs (4F-PCC, 54/191 [28.3%]; plasma, 49/197 [24.9%]) was similar between groups. The proportion of patients with thromboembolic events was also similar between groups (4F-PCC, 14/191 [7.3%]; plasma, 14/197 [7.1%]). There were 13 (6.8%) deaths in the 4F-PCC group and 13 (6.6%) in the plasma group. Fluid overload events occurred in more patients in the plasma group than the 4F-PCC group (25 [12.7%] and 9 [4.7%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS:These safety data represent the largest controlled assessment of a 4F-PCC to date. For patients requiring urgent VKA reversal, 4F-PCC had a safety profile similar to that of plasma (AEs, SAEs, thromboembolic events, and deaths), but was associated with fewer fluid overload events.

Project description:BackgroundAndexanet alfa is approved (FDA "accelerated approval"; EMA "conditional approval") as the first specific reversal agent for factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor-associated uncontrolled or life-threatening bleeding. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (4F-PCC) are commonly used as an off-label, non-specific, factor replacement approach to manage FXa inhibitor-associated life-threatening bleeding. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of andexanet alfa versus 4F-PCC for management of apixaban- or rivaroxaban-associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).MethodsThis two-cohort comparison study included andexanet alfa patients enrolled at US hospitals from 4/2015 to 3/2020 in the prospective, single-arm ANNEXA-4 study and a synthetic control arm of 4F-PCC patients admitted within a US healthcare system from 12/2016 to 8/2020. Adults with radiographically confirmed ICH who took their last dose of apixaban or rivaroxaban < 24 h prior to the bleed were included. Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 7, hematoma volume > 60 mL, or planned surgery within 12 h were excluded. Outcomes were hemostatic effectiveness from index to repeat scan, mortality within 30 days, and thrombotic events within five days. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using propensity score-overlap weighted logistic regression.ResultsThe study included 107 andexanet alfa (96.6% low dose) and 95 4F-PCC patients (79.3% receiving a 25 unit/kg dose). After propensity score-overlap weighting, mean age was 79 years, GCS was 14, time from initial scan to reversal initiation was 2.3 h, and time from reversal to repeat scan was 12.2 h in both arms. Atrial fibrillation was present in 86% of patients. Most ICHs were single compartment (78%), trauma-related (61%), and involved the intracerebral and/or intraventricular space(s) (53%). ICH size was ≥ 10 mL in volume (intracerebral and/or ventricular) or ≥ 10 mm in thickness (subdural or subarachnoid) in 22% of patients and infratentorial in 15%. Andexanet alfa was associated with greater odds of achieving hemostatic effectiveness (85.8% vs. 68.1%; OR 2.73; 95% CI 1.16-6.42) and decreased odds of mortality (7.9% vs. 19.6%; OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.98) versus 4F-PCC. Two thrombotic events occurred with andexanet alfa and none with 4F-PCC.ConclusionsIn this indirect comparison of patients with an apixaban- or rivaroxaban-associated ICH, andexanet alfa was associated with better hemostatic effectiveness and improved survival compared to 4F-PCC. Trial registration NCT02329327; registration date: December 31, 2014.