Andexanet Alfa for Acute Major Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa (andexanet) is a recombinant modified human factor Xa decoy protein that has been shown to reverse the inhibition of factor Xa in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-group study, we evaluated 67 patients who had acute major bleeding within 18 hours after the administration of a factor Xa inhibitor. The patients all received a bolus of andexanet followed by a 2-hour infusion of the drug. Patients were evaluated for changes in measures of anti-factor Xa activity and were assessed for clinical hemostatic efficacy during a 12-hour period. All the patients were subsequently followed for 30 days. The efficacy population of 47 patients had a baseline value for anti-factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng per milliliter (or ≥0.5 IU per milliliter for those receiving enoxaparin) and had confirmed bleeding severity at adjudication. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 77 years; most of the patients had substantial cardiovascular disease. Bleeding was predominantly gastrointestinal or intracranial. The mean (±SD) time from emergency department presentation to the administration of the andexanet bolus was 4.8±1.8 hours. After the bolus administration, the median anti-factor Xa activity decreased by 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58 to 94) from baseline among patients receiving rivaroxaban and by 93% (95% CI, 87 to 94) among patients receiving apixaban. These levels remained similar during the 2-hour infusion. Four hours after the end of the infusion, there was a relative decrease from baseline of 39% in the measure of anti-factor Xa activity among patients receiving rivaroxaban and of 30% among those receiving apixaban. Twelve hours after the andexanet infusion, clinical hemostasis was adjudicated as excellent or good in 37 of 47 patients in the efficacy analysis (79%; 95% CI, 64 to 89). Thrombotic events occurred in 12 of 67 patients (18%) during the 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a descriptive preliminary analysis, an initial bolus and subsequent 2-hour infusion of andexanet substantially reduced anti-factor Xa activity in patients with acute major bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors, with effective hemostasis occurring in 79%. (Funded by Portola Pharmaceuticals; ANNEXA-4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02329327 .).

Favorable outcome of rivaroxaban-associated intracerebral hemorrhage reversed by 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate: impact on thrombin generation.

The management of life-threatening bleeding associated with rivaroxaban remains a challenge for physicians due to the lack of evidence about clinically effective options for anticoagulation reversal. We report a favorable outcome in a patient receiving rivaroxaban prophylaxis, who developed a spontaneous subdural hematoma treated by a surgical evacuation and administration of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate. Classical coagulation variables were associated with impaired thrombin generation. Reversal with prothrombin complex concentrates improved all thrombin generation measures. Thrombin generation tests may be suitable for assessing the clinical utility of reversal drugs on rivaroxaban-induced coagulopathy.

A French multicenter randomised trial comparing two dose-regimens of prothrombin complex concentrates in urgent anticoagulation reversal.

INTRODUCTION: Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) are haemostatic blood preparations indicated for urgent anticoagulation reversal, though the optimal dose for effective reversal is still under debate. The latest generation of PCCs include four coagulation factors, the so-called 4-factor PCC. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of two doses, 25 and 40 IU/kg, of 4-factor PCC in vitamin K antagonist (VKA) associated intracranial haemorrhage. METHODS: We performed a phase III, prospective, randomised, open-label study including patients with objectively diagnosed VKA-associated intracranial haemorrhage between November 2008 and April 2011 in 22 centres in France. Patients were randomised to receive 25 or 40 IU/kg of 4-factor PCC. The primary endpoint was the international normalised ratio (INR) 10 minutes after the end of 4-factor PCC infusion. Secondary endpoints were changes in coagulation factors, global clinical outcomes and incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were randomised: 29 in the 25 IU/kg and 30 in the 40 IU/kg group. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. The mean INR was significantly reduced to 1.2 - and ≤1.5 in all patients of both groups - 10 minutes after 4-factor PCC infusion. The INR in the 40 IU/kg group was significantly lower than in the 25 IU/kg group 10 minutes (P = 0.001), 1 hour (P = 0.001) and 3 hours (P = 0.02) after infusion. The 40 IU/kg dose was also effective in replacing coagulation factors such as PT (P = 0.038), FII (P = 0.001), FX (P <0.001), protein C (P = 0.002) and protein S (0.043), 10 minutes after infusion. However, no differences were found in haematoma volume or global clinical outcomes between the groups. Incidence of death and thrombotic events was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid infusion of both doses of 4-factor PCC achieved an INR of 1.5 or less in all patients with a lower INR observed in the 40 IU/kg group. No safety concerns were raised by the 40 IU/kg dose. Further trials are needed to evaluate the impact of the high dose of 4-factor PCC on functional outcomes and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudra CT number 2007-000602-73.

Osteoporosis treatment in postmenopausal women after peripheral fractures: impact of information to general practitioners.

UNLABELLED: A low-impact fracture in a postmenopausal woman should prompt investigations for osteoporosis followed, if needed, by appropriate treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of information alerting general practitioners to the need for osteoporosis treatment in postmenopausal women with a recent history of peripheral fracture. METHODS: We conducted a prospective 7-month follow-up study of 78 postmenopausal women, with a mean age of 81.5 years, admitted to the emergency department for peripheral fractures. Three months after the fracture, we sent a letter to the general practitioner of each patient emphasizing the probable contribution of osteoporosis to the fracture and the need for osteoporosis treatment. Six months after the fracture, we interviewed the patients by telephone, and one month later we mailed a questionnaire to those physicians who had not followed the treatment recommendation. RESULTS: At emergency room admission, 9 patients were receiving treatment for osteoporosis (hormone replacement therapy in one patient and calcium and vitamin D supplementation in eight patients). Admission to a ward was required in 66 (85%) patients. No treatment for osteoporosis was given at discharge. Six months after discharge, seven patients reported recent initiation of calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and none reported other osteoporosis treatments. The response rate to the physician questionnaire mailed 7 months after discharge was 54% (n=28); responses showed treatment of 11 additional patients, by calcium and vitamin D supplementation in six cases and by bisphosphonates with or without calcium and vitamin D supplementation in five cases. Treatment initiation rates were similar in patients younger and older than 80 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite information of general practitioners about the need for osteoporosis treatment, such treatment was initiated in only 30.5% of patients. General practitioners may be reluctant to initiate osteoporosis treatment in patients who are very old or have multiple comorbidities.