Evaluation of Warfarin Reversal with 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Compared to 3-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved a four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) for warfarin reversal. The literature supporting its use over three-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (3-PCC) is limited. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to retrospectively compare the efficacy of 3-PCC to 4-PCC in reversing warfarin in patients who were actively bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients who received 3-PCC or 4-PCC for international normalized ratio (INR) reversal. Our study excluded patients not actively bleeding and not on warfarin. The main outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved warfarin reversal defined as INR ≤ 1.3 at first INR check post factor administration. We recorded baseline data including PCC dose, location of bleed, pre- and posttreatment INR, and time to INR reversal. RESULTS: We included a total of 53 patients. Intracranial hemorrhage was the most common site of bleeding (26 [74.3%] in 3-PCC vs. 12 [66.7%] in 4-PCC). The mean dose of 3-PCC was 25.5 units/kg, compared to 27.9 units/kg of 4-PCC. The mean baseline INR was 2.3 in the 3-PCC group and 3 in the 4-PCC group (p = 0.03), and the first posttreatment INRs were 1.4 and 1.2, respectively (p < 0.01). Warfarin reversal was achieved in 15 (42.9%) patients who received 3-PCC and 15 (83.3%) patients who received 4-PCC (p < 0.01). Faster time to INR reversal was noted in the 4-PCC group vs. the 3-PCC group (3.7 vs. 5 h, p = 0.48). CONCLUSION: A higher percentage of patients achieved warfarin reversal with 4-PCC compared to 3-PCC treatment. A prospective randomized control trial is necessary to confirm our results.

Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of aspirin, warfarin, and new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin and aspirin are used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). There are inherent challenges with both treatments, including variable and inconsistent benefit and increased bleeding risks. The availability of new anticoagulants offers some alternatives. OBJECTIVE: A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis to evaluate direct and indirect treatment data including aspirin, warfarin apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban for the prevention of primary or secondary stroke in patients with AF. METHODS: A comprehensive, systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized trials comparing aspirin, warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban in patients with AF requiring treatment for stroke prevention. Open-label and blinded designs were included if they evaluated any stroke or any bleeding event. Data on stroke and bleeding events were abstracted, verified, evaluated, scored, and entered into Aggregate Data Drug Information System version 1.16 to generate a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were evaluated, and we looked for inconsistency in closed loop structures. Data are reported as rate ratios with 95% credible intervals. In addition, we reviewed variance statistics and explored variance with node-splitting models. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 30 articles, 21 of which were included. All treatments except aspirin reduced the risk of any stroke compared with placebo. Warfarin (0.43 [0.33-0.57]), apixaban (0.37 [0.27-0.54]), dabigatran (0.34 [0.21-0.57]), rivaroxaban (0.36 [0.22-0.60]), and aspirin with clopidogrel (0.73 [0.53-0.99]) were more protective than aspirin alone. Warfarin and the new anticoagulants were similar in the reduction of stroke, vascular death, and mortality. There was no difference in major bleeding between any treatment group. There were more nonmajor bleeding events when comparing warfarin and apixaban (1.83 [1.05-4.03]); no other differences between warfarin and the other new anticoagulants were found. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis found similarity between warfarin and the new anticoagulants with the exception of one comparison, in which warfarin was associated with more non-major bleeding than apixaban. Thus, the new anticoagulants are therapeutically comparable when warfarin is inappropriate.