RESUMO
Background: Well-designed studies with sufficient sample size comparing andexanet alfa vs 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in routine clinical practice to evaluate clinical outcomes are limited. Objectives: To compare in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeding who were treated with andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC. Methods: An observational cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05548777) was conducted using electronic health records between May 2018 and September 2022 from 354 U.S. hospitals. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, inpatient admission with diagnosis code D68.32 (bleeding due to extrinsic anticoagulation), a record of use of the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban or apixaban, andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC treatment during index hospitalization, and a documented discharge disposition. Multivariable logistic regression on in-hospital mortality with andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed via a supportive propensity score-weighted logistic regression. Results: The analysis included 4395 patients (andexanet alfa, n = 2122; 4F-PCC, n = 2273). There were 1328 patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), 2567 with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds, and 500 with critical compartment or other bleed types. In the multivariable analysis, odds of in-hospital mortality were 50% lower for andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.65; P < .01) and were consistent for both ICH (OR, 0.55; [0.39-0.76]; P < .01) and GI bleeds (OR, 0.49 [0.29-0.81]; P = .01). Similar results were obtained from the supporting propensity score-weighted logistic regression analyses. Conclusion: In this large observational study, treatment with andexanet alfa in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeds was associated with 50% lower odds of in-hospital mortality than 4F-PCC. The magnitude of the risk reduction was similar in ICH and GI bleeds.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa (AA) is approved for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI) bleeds; however, there are limited reports of its use for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in real-world populations. The objective of this study was to report real-world utilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of AA for FXaI-associated GIB. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients receiving AA for FXaI-associated GIB (7/2018-2/2021). Demographics, blood product administration, hemostatic efficacy, rebleeding, thrombosis, and mortality rates were collected. Hemostatic efficacy (HE), based on corrected hemoglobin at 12 h compared to baseline, was categorized as excellent (<10% decrease), good (≤ 20% decrease), or poor (>20% decrease, > 2 units of additional coagulation intervention or death prior to repeat hemoglobin). Comparative transfusion requirements between efficacy groups was assessed by Wilcoxon-Rank test. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included (64% male, median (IQR) age 76 years (67, 80). Most patients (59%, n = 13) were on apixaban, and the primary anticoagulation indication was atrial fibrillation (64%, n = 14). Median initial hemoglobin was 7.5 g/dL (IQR 6.4, 8.8) and 50% (n = 11) were upper GIB. Hemostatic efficacy was excellent in 46% (n = 10), good in 23% (n = 5), and poor in 32% (n = 7). There was no statistically significant difference in red blood cells (RBCs) received between those with excellent/good hemostasis (median 2, IQR 1 to 2) and those with poor hemostasis (median 4, IQR 1.5 to 4.5). Two patients (9%) had arterial thrombotic events within 30 days of reversal. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter, single arm, real-world observational analysis of patients with factor Xa inhibitor associated GIB most patients achieved good hemostasis following administration of AA. There was a 9% 30-day thrombotic event rate. The lack of a control group limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study.
RESUMO
Oral factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors significantly reduce incidence of stroke and thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. Due to various factors and the lack of a randomized controlled trial comparing andexanet alfa to usual care, non-specific replacement agents including 4 F-PCC are still used off-label for FXa inhibitor bleed management. Clinical and mortality data were extracted from the inpatient medical data and Veteran Affairs (VA) vital status files over the time of March 2014 through December 2020. Propensity score-weighted models were used for this retrospective cohort study using data from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI). The study included 255 patients (85-andexanet alfa and 170-4 F-PCC) exposed to an oral factor Xa inhibitor and hospitalized with an acute major, gastrointestinal (GI), intracranial (ICH) or other bleed. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the andexanet alfa cohort compared to the 4 F-PCC cohort (10.6% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.01). Propensity score-weighted Cox models reveal a 69% lower hazard of in-hospital mortality for those treated with andexanet alfa (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.71) compared to those treated with 4 F-PCC. Additionally, those treated with andexanet alfa had a lower 30-day mortality rate and lower 30-day hazard of mortality in the weighted Cox model (20.0% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.039; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.98) compared to those treated with 4 F-PCC. Among 255 US veterans with major bleeding in the presence of an oral factor Xa inhibitor, treatment with andexanet alfa was associated with lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality than treatment with 4 F-PCC.
