Andexanet alfa for the reversal of factor Xa inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Andexanet alfa is a recombinant modified factor Xa protein that has been developed to reverse factor Xa inhibitors. Since May 2018, the FDA has approved its utilization in patients treated with apixaban and rivaroxaban in case of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding. On 28 of February 2019, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for andexanet alfa in Europe. Area covered: The authors provide an overview of andexanet alfa development and its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The results of the clinical phase III trial ANNEXA as well as current limitations related to andexanet alfa are also discussed. Expert opinion: Although phase I and II studies have proven that andexanet alfa can be effective in reversing the effect of factor Xa inhibitors, its efficacy in major bleeding patients has only been shown for apixaban and rivaroxaban, without any comparator group. Well-designed studies comparing the efficacy and safety of andexanet alfa to other reversal strategies are required to confirm preliminary data. The benefit of andexanet alfa in specific settings needs to be investigated and its use in clinical practice needs to be facilitated by the implementation of international guidelines.

Partial economic evaluation of clinical pharmacy interventions on the prescription of direct oral anticoagulants in a teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Potential inappropriate use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) increases the risk of thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events. PURPOSE: To determine the net cost benefit of clinical pharmacy interventions on the prescription of DOACs. METHOD: We constructed a decision tree model using a public payer perspective. The appropriateness of the prescription was assessed using the Medication Appropriateness Index. The theoretical risks were collected from the literature and the individual potential risks were calculated using the Nesbit risk assignment conducted by two independent clinical pharmacists. Different costs were included based on diagnosis-related group coding and data in the literature. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-six of 75 patients had an inappropriate prescription of DOACs. The saved difference between avoided costs (7954€) and annualised medication costs and pharmacist cost (4323€) was 3631€ for 75 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the enhancement of the quality of the prescription, our results indicate that pharmacist interventions provide a positive net cost benefit.