Using a low-molecular weight heparin-calibrated anti-factor Xa assay to assess the concentration of apixaban and rivaroxaban.

INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-inhibiting factor Xa (FXa-DOAC) are being increasingly used as prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism and for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. In contrast to vitamin K antagonists, DOACs do not require monitoring in general. However, it is sometimes of value in the acute setting, for instance when considering a reversal agent in uncontrolled bleeding in patients on DOAC. METHODS: We evaluated if a low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH)-calibrated anti-factor Xa assay could be used to estimate FXa-DOAC concentration in the concentration range <100 ng/mL by spiking known concentrations of FXa-DOAC and from those result calculate the FXa-DOAC concentration from the response of the LMWH assay. This procedure was then evaluated by comparing the result with a drug-calibrated chromogenic assay and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) on clinical plasma samples from patients treated with apixaban or rivaroxaban. RESULTS: Although the measuring range was narrower for the LMWH-calibrated assay, concentrations recalculated from the LMWH assay was comparable with those measured by the drug-calibrated method when compared with LC-MS/MS. CONCLUSION: We suggest that an LMWH-calibrated anti-factor Xa assay can be used after characterization of the response of FXa-DOACs to give guidance on the concentration of apixaban and rivaroxaban. Shorter turnaround time than LC-MS/MS and the greater availability than drug-calibrated chromogenic assays could make this a valuable option in the acute setting.

Apixaban concentration variability and relation to clinical outcomes in real-life patients with atrial fibrillation.

In some clinical situations, measurements of anticoagulant effect of apixaban may be needed. We investigated the inter- and intra-individual apixaban variability in patients with atrial fibrillation and correlated these results with clinical outcome. We included 62 patients receiving either 5 mg (A5, n = 32) or 2.5 mg (A2.5, n = 30) apixaban twice-daily. We collected three trough and three peak blood samples 6-8 weeks apart. Apixaban concentration was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and by anti-Xa. Patients on A2.5 were older, had lower creatinine clearance, higher CHA2DS2VASc (4.7 ± 1.0 vs. 3.4 ± 1.7) and lower trough (85 ± 39 vs. 117 ± 53 ng/mL) and peak (170 ± 56 vs. 256 ± 91 ng/mL) apixaban concentrations than patients on A5 (all p < 0.01). In patients on A5, LC-MS/MS showed a significant difference between through levels and between peak levels (p < 0.01). During apixaban treatment, 21 patients suffered bleeding (2 major). There was no association between bleeding and apixaban concentrations or variability. Four patients who suffered thromboembolic event had lower peak apixaban concentrations than patients without it (159 ± 13 vs. 238 ± 88 ng/mL, p = 0.05). We concluded, that there was a significant intra- and inter-individual variability in apixaban trough and peak concentrations. Neither variability nor apixaban concentrations were associated with clinical outcomes.

Intra- and inter- individual rivaroxaban concentrations and potential bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Routine laboratory monitoring of rivaroxaban and dose adjustment relating to exposure is currently not recommended. However, in certain clinical situations, assessment of rivaroxaban levels is desirable. OBJECTIVES: To examine inter- and intra-subject plasma rivaroxaban variability in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and to correlate these results to clinical outcomes. PATIENTS/METHODS: We included 60 patients with AF treated with rivaroxaban: half on 20 mg daily (R20) and half on 15 mg daily (R15). Three trough and peak blood samples were collected with an interval of 6-8 weeks apart. Plasma rivaroxaban concentration was measured directly by liquid chromatography-tandem mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and indirectly by anti-Xa for rivaroxaban, prothrombin time (PT), and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT). RESULTS: Patients on R15 were older (76 ± 6 vs 71 ± 6 years), had lower creatinine clearance (60 ± 26 vs 99 ± 32 mL/min), higher CHADS2 (2.5 ± 1.2 vs 1.8 ± 1.3), all p < 0.01, but had similar rivaroxaban concentrations in trough samples to patients on R20. There was no significant intra-individual variability for trough or peak rivaroxaban concentration assessed by LC-MS/MS, anti-Xa, or PT. Trough rivaroxaban levels determined by LC-MS/MS (48 ± 30 vs 34 ± 26, p = 0.02) and anti-Xa, but not with PT and APTT, were higher in patients with bleeding than in patients without it. CONCLUSIONS: There is a pronounced inter-, but not intra-individual variability in the rivaroxaban trough levels in patients with AF. Assessment of trough rivaroxaban concentration with LC-MS/MS or anti-Xa, but not with APTT or PT, may help to identify patients at increased risk of bleeding.

Clinical evaluation of laboratory methods to monitor apixaban treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: The direct factor-Xa inhibitor apixaban is approved e.g. for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although routine monitoring of apixaban therapy is currently not recommended, selective monitoring could be useful to optimize efficacy and safety in certain clinical situations. We studied the exposure and effect of apixaban using different laboratory methods in a clinical setting with a well-defined cohort of AF patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy AF patients (72±7.4years, 64 % men, mean CHADS2 score 1.7) treated with apixaban 2.5 (n=10) or 5mg BID (n=60). Trough plasma apixaban concentrations determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) were compared to the coagulation assays Anti-factor Xa, PT-INR and aPTT. RESULTS: The apixaban plasma concentration determined by LC-MS/MS varied more than 10-fold overall. The range was between 15-83 and 29-186ng/mL for the 2.5mg BID and 5mg BID respectively, with patients receiving 5mg BID having significantly higher apixaban concentrations (p<0.001). A strong correlation between LC-MS/MS and anti-FXa-assay was found (p<0.001), while aPTT and PT-INR were not sensitive enough. There were no significant correlations between gender, creatinine clearance, body weight or age and apixaban exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-FXa-assay performed well upon apixaban concentrations in a normal exposure range. Still LC-MS/MS remains the "gold standard" method, covering also low concentrations. Compared to clinical trials, we observed relatively lower apixaban exposure and a more pronounced difference between high and low dose. Additional information regarding apixaban exposure and benefit-risk profile is needed in order to individualize treatment.

Evaluation of coagulation assays versus LC-MS/MS for determinations of dabigatran concentrations in plasma.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor for which routine laboratory monitoring is currently not recommended. However, there are situations in which measurements of the drug and its effect are desirable. We therefore compared and validated different coagulation methods for assessments of dabigatran in clinical samples in relation to measurements of plasma dabigatran, without the purpose of establishing effective and safe concentrations of dabigatran in plasma. METHODS: Samples were obtained from 70 atrial fibrillation patients treated with dabigatran etexilate. Plasma concentrations were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and were compared with coagulation methods Hemoclot thrombin inhibitors (HTI) and Ecarin clotting assay (ECA), as well as with prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (PT-INR) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). RESULTS: A wide range of dabigatran concentrations was determined by LC-MS/MS (<0.5-586 ng/mL). Correlations between LC-MS/MS results and estimated concentrations were excellent for both HTI and ECA overall (r(2) = 0.97 and 0.96 respectively, p < 0.0001), but the precision and variability of these assays were not fully satisfactory in the low range of dabigatran plasma concentrations, in which ECA performed better than HTI. aPTT performed poorly, and was normal (<40 s) even with dabigatran levels of 60 ng/mL. PT-INR was normal even at supratherapeutic dabigatran concentrations. CONCLUSION: LC-MS/MS is the gold standard for measurements of dabigatran in plasma. Alternatively, either HTI or ECA assays may be used, but neither of these assays is dependable when monitoring low levels or to infer total absence of dabigatran. The aPTT assay is relatively insensitive to dabigatran, and normal aPTT results may be observed even with therapeutic dabigatran concentrations.

Pneumatic tube transport affects platelet function measured by multiplate electrode aggregometry.

Multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) is used to measure platelet function. Pneumatic tube transport systems (PTS) for delivery of patient samples to a central laboratory are often used to reduce turnaround time for vital analyses. We evaluated the effects of PTS transport on platelet function as measured by MEA. Duplicate samples were collected from 58 individuals. One sample was sent using PTS and the other was carried by personnel to the lab. Platelet function was measured by means of a Multiplate® analyzer using the ADP test, ASPI test, COL test, RISTO test and TRAP test. Samples transported using PTS showed a reduction of AUC-values of up to a 100% of the average as compared to samples carried by personnel and a majority showed reductions of AUC-values greater than 20% of the average. Bias±95% limits of agreement for the ADP test were 26±56% of the average. Bias±95% limits of agreement for the ASPI test were 16±58% of the average. Bias±95% limits of agreement for the COL test were 20±54% of the average. Bias±95% limits of agreement for the RISTO were 14±79% of the average. Bias±95% limits of agreement for the TRAP test were 19±45% of the average. We conclude that PTS transport affect platelet activity as measured by MEA. We advise against clinical decisions regarding platelet function on the basis of samples sent by PTS in our hospital settings.