Dataset Information

Andexanet alfa versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the reversal of apixaban- or rivaroxaban-associated intracranial hemorrhage: a propensity score-overlap weighted analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Andexanet 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).

Methods

This 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Costa OS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9204964 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Andexanet alfa versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the reversal of apixaban- or rivaroxaban-associated intracranial hemorrhage: a propensity score-overlap weighted analysis.

Costa Olivia S OS Connolly Stuart J SJ Sharma Mukul M Beyer-Westendorf Jan J Christoph Mary J MJ Lovelace Belinda B Coleman Craig I CI

Critical care (London, England) 20220616 1

<h4>Background</h4>Andexanet 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 manag ...[more]

PMID: 35710578

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectiveThere are limited data on the risks and benefits of using andexanet alfa (AA) in comparison with four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) to reverse factor Xa inhibitors (FXi) associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We sought to describe our experience with AA or 4F-PCC in patients with oral FXi-related traumatic and spontaneous ICH.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of consecutive adult patients with FXi-related ICH who received AA or 4F-PCC. FXi-related ICH cases included traumatic and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhages. Our primary analysis evaluated ICH stability on head computed tomography scan (CT), defined as a similar amount of blood from the initial scan at the onset of ICH to subsequent scans, at 6-h and 24-h post-administration of AA or 4F-PCC. For the subset of spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhages, volume was measured at 6-h and 24-h post-reversal. In secondary analyses, we evaluated good functional outcome at discharge, defined as a Modified Rankin Score of less than 3, and the incidence of thrombotic events after AA or 4F-PCC adminstration, during hospitalization.ResultsA total of 44 patients (16 traumatic and 28 spontaneous ICH) with median age of 79 years [72-86], 36% females, with a FXi-related ICH, were included in this study. The majority of spontaneous ICHs were intraparenchymal 19 (68%). Twenty-eight patients (64%) received AA and 16 patients (36%) received 4F-PCC. There was no difference between AA and 4F-PCC in terms of CT stability at 6 h (21 [78%] vs 10 [71%], p = 0.71) and 24 h (15 [88%] vs 6 [60%], p = 0.15). In a subgroup of patients with spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage, there was no difference in the degree of achieved hemostasis based on hematoma volume between AA and 4F-PCC at 6 h (9.3 mL [6.9-26.4] vs 10 mL [9.4-22.1], adjusted p = 0. 997) and 24-h (9.2 mL [6.1-18.8] vs 9.9 [9.4-21.1], adjusted p = 1). The number of patients with good outcome based on mRS on discharge were 10 (36%) and 6 (38%) in the AA and 4F-PCC groups, respectively (adjusted p = 0.81). The incidence of thromboembolic events was similar in the AA and 4F-PCC groups (2 [7%] vs 0, p = 0.53).ConclusionIn this limited sample of patients, we found no difference in neuroimaging stability, functional outcome and thrombotic events when comparing AA and 4F-PCC in patients with FXi-related ICH. Since our analysis is likely underpowered, a multi-center collaborative network devoted to this question is warranted.

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.

Dataset Information

Andexanet alfa versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the reversal of apixaban- or rivaroxaban-associated intracranial hemorrhage: a propensity score-overlap weighted analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Andexanet alfa versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the reversal of apixaban- or rivaroxaban-associated intracranial hemorrhage: a propensity score-overlap weighted analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets