Louis Lipari1, Sam Yang2, Brian Milligan3, Joseph Blunck4. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Research Medical Center, Kansas City, MO, USA. Electronic address: louis.lipari@hcamidwest.com. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Saint Luke's Health System, Kansas City, MO, USA. Electronic address: syang@saint-lukes.org. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. Electronic address: brianmilligan@alumni.stanford.edu. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Saint Luke's Health System, Kansas City, MO, USA. Electronic address: jblunck@saint-lukes.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding first-line use of the recently approved reversal agent andexanet alfa due to limitations of the ANEXXA-4 study, thrombotic risks, and high medication acquisition cost. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 4F-PCC for the reversal of emergent oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate a subgroup using strict ANNEXA-4 patient selection criteria. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted utilizing chart review of adult patients that received 4F-PCC for oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinical success defined as achieving excellent or good hemostatic effectiveness following the administration of 4F-PCC. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and arterial/venous thromboembolism, and cost compared with andexanet alfa. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included, with 83 patients in the ANNEXA-4 criteria subgroup. Eighty-five of the 119 patients (71%) required reversal due to intracranial bleeding. Prior to reversal, 70 patients (59%) were taking apixaban and 49 patients (41%) were taking rivaroxaban. Clinical success was achieved in 106 of 119 patients (89%) and 74 of 83 patients (90%) in the strict criteria subgroup. Three of 119 patients (2.5%) had a thrombotic event during hospital stay and the overall mortality rate was 13%. The average cost increase of andexanet alfa compared to 4F-PCC would have been $29,500 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 4F-PCC for the reversal of oral fXa inhibitors was effective with relatively low thrombotic risk. Further direct prospective comparison of 4F-PCC to andexanet alfa is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding first-line use of the recently approved reversal agent andexanet alfa due to limitations of the ANEXXA-4 study, thrombotic risks, and high medication acquisition cost. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 4F-PCC for the reversal of emergent oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate a subgroup using strict ANNEXA-4patient selection criteria. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted utilizing chart review of adult patients that received 4F-PCC for oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinical success defined as achieving excellent or good hemostatic effectiveness following the administration of 4F-PCC. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and arterial/venous thromboembolism, and cost compared with andexanet alfa. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included, with 83 patients in the ANNEXA-4 criteria subgroup. Eighty-five of the 119 patients (71%) required reversal due to intracranial bleeding. Prior to reversal, 70 patients (59%) were taking apixaban and 49 patients (41%) were taking rivaroxaban. Clinical success was achieved in 106 of 119 patients (89%) and 74 of 83 patients (90%) in the strict criteria subgroup. Three of 119 patients (2.5%) had a thrombotic event during hospital stay and the overall mortality rate was 13%. The average cost increase of andexanet alfa compared to 4F-PCC would have been $29,500 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 4F-PCC for the reversal of oral fXa inhibitors was effective with relatively low thrombotic risk. Further direct prospective comparison of 4F-PCC to andexanet alfa is warranted.