Vitamin K Antagonist Reversal for Urgent Surgery Using 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrates: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Millions of people take vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Some people who need urgent surgical procedures require rapid VKA reversal to prevent excessive intraoperative bleeding. Objective: To evaluate the hemostatic noninferiority of an investigational 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) to a control 4F-PCC for rapid VKA reversal before urgent surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, double-blind, noninferiority randomized clinical trial (LEX-209) was conducted in 24 hospitals in the US, Russia, Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Romania from June 7, 2017, through November 8, 2021; the study was stopped in February 2022. Participants were adult patients taking VKA who had an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2 or higher and needed urgent surgery with a substantial bleeding risk (≥50 mL). Patients were randomized 1:1 to a single infusion of either the investigational 4F-PCC or the control 4F-PCC. Data analysis followed intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. Interventions: Single intravenous infusion was dosed by body weight and baseline INR. A dose of 25, 35, or 50 IU/kg of investigational 4F-PCC or control 4F-PCC was administered for baseline INR of 2 to less than 4, 4 to 6, or over 6, respectively. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary end point was hemostatic efficacy at surgery end. An independent adjudication board, blinded to the 4F-PCC treatment allocation, assessed hemostatic efficacy using an objective 4-point scale. Results: A total of 208 patients (median [range] age, 67.5 [31-92] years; 118 males [56.7%]) received the investigational (n = 105) or the control (n = 103) 4F-PCC. The median (range) dose was 25 (16-50) IU/kg in the investigational group and 25 (15-50) IU/kg in the control group, with a median (range) infusion time of 12 (8-50) minutes and 13 (7-30) minutes and a median (range) time from infusion to surgery start of 1.42 (0.25-15.25) hours and 1.50 (0.42-18.50) hours, respectively. Baseline median (range) INR was 3.05 (1.97-21.10) in the investigational group and 3.00 (2.00-11.30) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the investigational 4F-PCC was noninferior to the control 4F-PCC, resulting in effective hemostasis in 94.3% of patients vs 94.2% of patients (proportion difference, 0.001; 95% CI, -0.080 to 0.082; P < .001), meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.15. An INR of 1.5 or lower at 30 minutes after infusion occurred in 78.1% of patients in the investigational group vs 71.8% of patients in the control group (proportion difference, 0.063; 95% CI, -0.056 to 0.181). Thrombotic events (2.9% vs 0%, respectively) and mortality (4.8% vs 1.0%, respectively) were no different than expected for 4F-PCC use. One patient in each treatment group discontinued due to adverse events (cardiac disorders unrelated to 4F-PCC). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that the investigational 4F-PCC was hemostatically noninferior to the control 4F-PCC for rapid VKA reversal in patients needing urgent surgery with considerable bleeding risk; the safety profile of these two 4F-PCCs was similar. These results support the investigational 4F-PCC as a therapeutic option for surgical patients requiring rapid VKA reversal. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02740335.

Global Hemostatic Methods to Tailor Treatment With Bypassing Agents in Hemophilia A With Inhibitors- A Single-Center, Pilot Study.

For patients with hemophilia A and high-titer inhibitors treated with bypassing agents there are no reliable methods to assess treatment effect. We investigated the utility of global hemostatic methods in assessing treatment with bypassing agents (rFVIIa or activated prothrombin complex [aPCC]). All patients with hemophilia A and inhibitors followed at the Coagulation Unit or the Pediatric Coagulation Unit at Karolinska University Hospital aged 6 years and above were eligible for this noninterventional study. Baseline plasma samples were spiked with bypassing agents in increasing concentrations (aPCC 50 U/kg, 100 U/kg, 150 U/kg, and rFVIIa 90 µg/kg and 270 µg/kg) in vitro. For patients treated with factor concentrates or bypassing agents follow-up samples were collected (in vivo tests). The samples were analyzed using overall hemostatic potential (OHP), and calibrated automated thrombogram, Calibrated Automated Thrombogram (CAT). Nine patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors were included. Spiking with rFVIIa normalized the coagulation potential in 6/8 samples, in 3 only with high dose. Only one sample did not improve adequately after spiking with aPCC. The improvement in hemostasis was reliably shown by both CAT and OHP. The baseline potential was, however, more often measurable by OHP compared to CAT. Factor concentrate had been administered to 5 patients normalizing the hemostatic potential in vivo in 2 (without spiking). The hemostatic improvement induced by spiking with rFVIIa or aPCC is shown by OHP and CAT, but the results have to be evaluated in larger cohorts.

Andexanet alpha versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in DOACs anticoagulation reversal: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of evidence for the comparative effectiveness of Andexanet alpha and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in anticoagulation reversal of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The primary aim of our systematic review was to verify which drug is more effective in reducing short-term all-cause mortality. The secondary aim was to determine which of the two reverting strategies is less affected by thromboembolic events. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were analysed in the systematic review and quantitative synthesis. In all-cause short-term mortality, Andexanet alpha showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.71(95% CI 0.37-1.34) in RCTs and PSMs, compared to 4F-PCC (I2 = 81%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 0.84 (95% CI 0.69-1.01) for the common effects model and 0.82 (95% CI 0.63-1.07) for the random effects model (I2 = 34.2%). Regarding the incidence of thromboembolic events, for RCTs and PSMs, the common and the random effects model exhibited a RR of 1.74 (95% CI 1.09-2.77), and 1.71 (95% CI 1.01-2.89), respectively, for Andexanet alpha compared to 4F-PCC (I2 = 0%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 1.21 (95% CI 0.87-1.69) for the common effects model and 1.18 (95% CI 0.86-1.62) for the random effects model (I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Considering a large group of both retrospective and controlled studies, Andexanet alpha did not show a statistically significant advantage over 4F-PCC in terms of mortality. In the analysis of the controlled studies alone, Andexanet alpha is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2024, CRD42024548768.

Regular prophylaxis with activated prothrombin complex concentrates in pediatric hemophilia.

BACKGROUND: Regular prophylaxis with activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCCs) is effective in adult patients with hemophilia with inhibitors; however, data in children are scarce. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study at Saitama Children's Medical Center. Patients with severe and moderate hemophilia with inhibitors aged <15 years at the start of aPCCs prophylaxis were included. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: We treated nine pediatric patients with hemophilia with inhibitors (median age, 1.9 years; age range, 1.3-12.9 years; inhibitor titers before treatment with aPCCs, 5.9-69 BU/mL) using prophylactic aPCCs (doses, 50-100 U/kg; 2-3 times/week). The median prophylactic period was 13 months (range: 5-31 months). The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) during prophylactic treatment with aPCCs was 2 (range, 0-17). In four patients, ABR was reduced by 19%-100% with prophylactic aPCCs compared to on-demand aPCCs. An adverse effect of treatment was that a patient with hemophilia B developed nephrotic syndrome 34 months after starting regular prophylaxis with aPCCs. CONCLUSIONS: Regular prophylactic aPCCs reduced the ABR even in younger children with hemophilia A and B. Serious adverse events include nephrotic syndrome, which requires caution.

Andexanet alfa versus PCC products for factor Xa inhibitor bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.

Reversal or Repletion Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Patients With Major Bleeding Events Managed in the Emergency Department: Large Real-Life Investigation in the Northwestern Healthcare District of Tuscany.

OBJECTIVE: To verify the incidence of bleeding events in patients on ongoing anticoagulant treatment in the real world and compare the results of different reversal or repletion strategies currently available for pharmacological treatment. METHODS: Patients managed in the emergency department (ED) with major bleeding events, on ongoing anticoagulation were stratified according to bleeding site and reversal or repletion therapy with andexanet alfa (ADX), idarucizumab (IDA), prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), and vitamin K (Vit-K). ENDPOINT: Death at 30 days was compared in the subgroups with cerebral hemorrhage (CH) and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. RESULTS: Of the 809,397 visits in the years 2022-2023 at 6 EDs in the northwestern health district of Tuscany, 5372 patients with bleeding events were considered; 3740 were excluded due to minor bleeding or propensity score matching. Of the remaining 1632 patients with major bleeding, 548 on ongoing anticoagulation were enrolled; 334 received reversal or repletion agents. Patients with CH (n = 176) and GI bleeding (n = 108) represented the primary analysis cohorts in the study's strategic treatment assessment. Overall, 30-day survival of patients on ongoing aFXa treatment receiving on-label ADX versus off-label PCC showed a relative increase of 71%, while 30-day survival of patients on ongoing aFII receiving on-label IDA versus off-label PCC showed a relative increase of 30%; no substantial difference was found when comparing on-label PCC combined with Vit-K versus off-label Vit-K alone. Indeed, patients undergoing on-label ADX or IDA showed a statistically significant difference over off-label PCC (ADX vs. PCC: n = 15, events = 4, mean ± SD 82.50 ± 18.9, vs. 49, 13, 98.82 ± 27, respectively; analysis of variance [ANOVA] variance 8627; P < 0.001; posthoc test diff 32, 95% confidence interval: 28-35; P < 001; IDA vs. PCC: 20, 5, 32.29 ± 15.0 vs. 2, 1, 28.00 ± 0.0, respectively; ANOVA 1484; P < 0.001; posthoc test -29, -29 -29, respectively; P = n.d.). On-label PCC combined with Vit-K showed overall a slight statistically significant difference versus off-label Vit-K alone (52, 16, 100.58 ± 22.6 vs. 53, 11, 154.62 ± 29.8, respectively; ANOVA 310; P < 0.02; posthoc test 4, 0.7-7.2, respectively; P < 0.02). Data were confirmed in the group of patients with CH (ADX vs. PCC: n = 13, events = 3, mean ± SD 91.55 ± 18.6 vs. 78, 21, 108.91 ± 20.9, respectively; ANOVA variance 10,091, F = 261; P < 0.001; posthoc difference test 36, 95% confidence interval: 30-41; P < 0.001; IDA vs. PCC: 10, 2, 4.50 ± 2.5 vs. 78, 21, 108.91 ± 20.9, respectively; ANOVA 16,876,303, respectively; P < 0.001; posthoc test 41, 34-47, respectively; P < 0.001). On-label PCC combined with Vit-K showed an overall slight statistically significant difference compared with off-label Vit-K alone (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001 in the subgroups of CH and GI bleeding). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing specific reversal therapy with on-label ADX or IDA, when treated with aFXa or aFII anticoagulants, respectively, showed statistically elevated differences in 30-day death compared with off-label repletion therapy with PCC. Overall, 30-day survival of patients on ongoing aFXa or aFII receiving on-label reversal therapy with ADX or IDA compared with off-label PCC repletion agents showed an increase of 71% and 30%, respectively.

Comparison of Fixed Versus Weight-Based Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Dosing Strategies for Factor Xa Inhibitor Reversal.

Background: Our institution introduced fixed-dose prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) to streamline order verification and medication administration. Previous studies using fixed-dose PCC for vitamin K antagonist reversal showed comparable efficacy to weight-based dosing. Objective: To compare fixed versus weight-based PCC dosing for reversal of Factor Xa Inhibitor (FXaI) effects. Methods: Retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary care academic medical center. Patients who received PCC to reverse the effects of apixaban or rivaroxaban were eligible. Subjects in the fixed-dose group (5000 units or 2000 units) were compared to weight-based PCC (50 units/kg). The primary outcome was time between order entry and medication administration. Secondary outcomes included: average PCC dose, postadministration procedures, achieved hemostasis, 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay, and adverse drug events. Results: 72 patients received fixed-dose PCC and 101 received weight-based PCC. Median time between order entry and administration was 4.5 min shorter in the fixed-dose group compared to weight-based (34.5 vs 39 min, P = .10). In patients who received fixed-dose, 79.2% achieved hemostasis versus 71.3% in the weight-based group (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.94-1.32). There was no difference in the number of subsequent hemorrhage-related surgeries (29.2% vs 36.7%, RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.51-1.24) or mortality rate (26.4% vs 35.6%, RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.46-1.17). There were zero adverse drug events reported. Rates of thrombosis were 2.8% and < 1% (P = .57) in the fixed and weight-based groups, respectively. Conclusion and Relevance: The fixed-dosing strategy did not reduce time to PCC administration nor impact hemostasis or mortality. These data support that the fixed-dosing method is a viable option.

Efficacy of human prothrombin complex concentrate in the treatment of warfarin overdose in patients receiving warfarin for mechanical heart valve replacement.

Warfarin, a widely utilized anticoagulant, is paramount for preventing thromboembolic events in patients with mechanical heart valve replacements. However, its narrow therapeutic index can lead to over-anticoagulation and overdose, resulting in serious health risks. This study examines the efficacy of human prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in managing warfarin overdose, in comparison with traditional treatments. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 162 adults who presented with warfarin overdose (INR > 5.0) at a tertiary care hospital between 2016 and 2020. Participants were divided into 2 groups-those treated with PCC (n = 57) and those treated with conventional methods (n = 105), including vitamin K and fresh frozen plasma. The primary outcome was the rate of reaching the target (International Normalized Ratio) INR within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements, thromboembolic events, adverse reactions, 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay. PCC demonstrated significant efficacy, with 89.5% of patients achieving the target INR within 24 hours, compared to 64.8% in the control group (P < .05). The PCC group also had reduced transfusion requirements and a shorter average hospital stay. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic events or adverse reactions between the 2 groups, and the reduced 30-day mortality in the PCC group was not statistically significant. Human prothrombin complex concentrate is associated with rapid reaching the target INR, decreased transfusion needs, and shortened hospitalization, making it a promising option for warfarin overdose management. While the results are encouraging, larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are necessary to further validate these findings and optimize PCC administration protocols.

Evaluation of modified fixed dose four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for warfarin reversal.

Non-activated four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4 F-PCC) has emerged as the preferred reversal strategy for patients on warfarin with life-threatening bleeding. Current dosing recommendations for 4 F-PCC require pre-treatment international normalized ratio (INR) and bodyweight values, resulting in ordering and administration delays. Studies have shown that alternative dosing regimens are safe and efficacious. This retrospective, single-center, pre- and post-protocol analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of a pharmacist driven modified fixed-dose 4 F-PCC regimen versus package insert weight- and INR-based dosing regimen for warfarin reversal. The primary outcome was achievement of INR less than two. Secondary outcomes included dose and cost of 4 F-PCC, a time analysis, incidence of concomitant vitamin K administration, and incidence of thrombosis within seven days of 4 F-PCC. There were 195 patients included in the analysis, with 74 in the pre-cohort and 121 in the post-cohort. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts with the most common indication for warfarin use being atrial fibrillation (48.6% versus 47.1%) and reversal being intracerebral hemorrhage (68.9% versus 43.0%). Achievement of the primary endpoint occurred in 92% versus 95% (p = 0.097) of patients. A statistically significant difference was seen between cohorts regarding median dose and cost of 4 F-PCC administered (p < 0.001). Eleven thromboembolic events occurred with three events in the pre-cohort and eight events in the post-cohort (p = 0.453). A fixed-dose of 1500IU of 4 F-PCC was effective in reversing INR to less than two in most patients regardless of reversal indication with minimal thrombotic risks.

The Effect of 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate to Reverse Factor Xa Inhibitors in Patients With Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage.

The utility of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) for reversal in patients on factor Xa inhibitors (XaI) is unclear, specifically in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This is a retrospective review over 6 years at a level 1 trauma center of patients presenting with mTBI on XaI comparing outcomes for those that received 4F-PCC to those that did not. 140 patients were included, 103 (74%) of these patients received 4F-PCC while 37 (26%) did not. There was no significant difference in neurologic decline within 48 hours of admission or need for neurosurgical intervention. Interestingly, there was no difference in ICH progression (16% vs 14%, P = .77). In this study, 4F-PCC given after mild traumatic brain injury did not impact ICH progression, neurologic decline, or need for neurosurgical intervention. Although limited in numbers, this study suggests that 4F-PCC is not necessarily required in mTBI and further studies are indicated.

Effect of low- versus high-dose 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding: A qualitative systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to evaluate current literature on the treatment of factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeds with 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC), with a focus on the effect of low versus high dosing of 4F-PCC on hemostatic efficacy and safety outcomes. SUMMARY: A search of PubMed and EBSCOhost was performed to identify studies evaluating patients with a factor Xa inhibitor-bleed treated with 4F-PCC at either low or high doses. Studies of patients receiving alternative reversal agents such as fresh frozen plasma and andexanet alfa or where no comparator group was evaluated were excluded from the analysis. To assess the effect of these 4F-PCC dosing strategies, the primary outcome of interest was hemostatic efficacy. Four studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in this review. In each of the included studies, similar rates of hemostatic efficacy, hospital mortality, and venous thromboembolism were observed in the low- and high-dose cohorts. CONCLUSION: These results suggest low- and high-dose 4F-PCC may confer similar clinical effectiveness and safety; however, these findings should be evaluated and confirmed with future prospective studies.

Utilization and safety of off-label prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in a nonsurgical population.

The aim of this study was to evaluate and describe the utilization and safety of 4F-PCC in a nonanticoagulated, nonsurgical patient population at an academic, tertiary care center. This retrospective, single-center chart review evaluated nonanticoagulated adult patients at least 18 years of age who had at least one dose of 4F-PCC administered between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2022, for a nonsurgical indication. Hemostatic efficacy following 4F-PCC administration was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included an assessment of blood product administration, thrombotic events within 30 days post4F-PCC administration, in-hospital mortality, and the length of hospital stay. A total of 59 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 10 patients received 4F-PCC for coagulopathy associated with liver disease, 34 for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and 15 for other indications. For the primary outcome of hemostatic efficacy, 17 non-ICH patients (85%) had achieved hemostasis post-4F-PCC, and among the ICH patient population, 18 (64%) did not show expansion on repeat CT post4F-PCC, suggesting hemostasis. Blood product and hemostatic agent usage was frequent, with 72.9% of patients requiring products post-4F-PCC. Acute thromboembolic events occurred in six patients (10.2%), and in-hospital mortality occurred in 55.9% of patients. Off-label 4F-PCC use is common despite a lack of robust guidance for use. Following 4F-PCC administration, blood product use was frequent, the incidence of in-hospital mortality was high, and thromboembolic complications such deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and stroke were reported. Further studies are needed to validate the off-label administration of 4F-PCC in nonanticoagulated patients.

Diagnosis and treatment challenges in lower resource countries: State-of-the-art.

The 2022 World Federation of Haemophilia Annual Global Survey (AGS) reports that 454,690 patients with inherited bleeding disorders (IBD) have been identified globally. While this represents noteworthy progress, haemophilia epidemiology data indicate that 75% of people with inherited bleeding disorders living in low-income and low-to-middle-income countries have yet to be diagnosed. The AGS also revealed that 11 billion clotting factor units are available to treat haemophilia A and B globally. Due to a lack of finance, these treatments are unavailable to haemophilia in low-income countries with a consequence lack of access equity for haemophilia treatment in these communities. This sobering reality is not limited to haemophilia but applies to von Willebrand Disease (VWD). While VWD is the most prevalent IBD, only 103,844 people living with this condition have been diagnosed globally. Of the diagnosed patients, only a fraction live in low- or middle-income countries. Moreover, the majority of VWD patients are still treated sub-optimally without replacement therapies or prophylaxis, both of which are now accepted as global standards of care. In this state-of-the-art review, the authors reflect on three issues. First, the minimum elements required to diagnose haemophilia in a resource-constrained setting are identified. Second, this review points to the critical stakeholders and outlines their roles in removing access to haemophilia treatment barriers. Finally, the authors examine von Willebrand disease's ongoing diagnostic and treatment challenges and compare these to haemophilia. With the rapidly evolving novel therapies, the therapeutic landscape of all IBD will likely change for the better.

Benefits and risks of non-factor therapies: Redefining haemophilia treatment goals in the era of new technologies.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decades progress in haemophilia treatment has been remarkable and prophylaxis with clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia A and B has been established as the standard of care in individuals with haemophilia and a severe bleeding phenotype. Besides clotting factor products with prolonged half-life non-factor therapies were developed which enable prophylaxis via subcutaneous administration. Factor VIIIa mimetics like emicizumab facilitate the coagulation pathway and are used in routine clinical practice for indivdiduals with haemophilia A. Rebalancing therapeutic agents like fitusiran, concizumab, marstacimab and serpin PC block the anticoagulant pathway and clinical trials using these products in individuals with haemophilia A and B are ongoing. AIM AND METHODS: A narrative review to asess the benefits and risks of non-factor therapies taking in to account re-defined haemophilia treatment goals. RESULTS: Prophylaxis for prevention of bleeds using non-factor products by subcutaneous administration is effective and results in reductions of bleeding episodes in individuals with haemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors. The treatment with emicizumab showed tolerable safety both in clinical trials and long-term real-world observations with few thrombotic events. In some clinical trials with rebalancing therapies (fitusiran and concizumab) thrombotic events occurred. Monitoring of the haemostatic function of novel therapies especially with concomitant haemostatic treatment is not yet established. CONCLUSION: With the advent of novel therapeutic agents including factor concentrates with ultra-long half-life and improved FVIIIa mimetics aimed at raising the bar of protection into the non-hemophilic range redefinition of haemophilia treatment goals is eagerly needed.

Rare bleeding disorders: Advances in management.

Inherited factor coagulation deficiencies and vascular bleeding disorders, associated with bleeding of various severity, are often classified as rare bleeding disorders (RBDs). These include inherited fibrinogen disorders, inherited platelet function disorders (IPFD) and hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). In the last decades, there have been large increases in knowledge on the epidemiology, genetics, physiopathology, clinical features, and diagnosis of RBDs, but improvements in management have been more limited and remain challenging. The treatment mainstay of RBDs is based only on replacement of a few available coagulation factor concentrates or cryoprecipitates. There is growing interest in therapeutic agents that enhance coagulation or inhibiting anticoagulant pathways in RBDs. In severe IPFD, the optimal platelet transfusion strategy is not yet established. Moreover, data is scarce on the effectiveness and safety of desmopressin and/or antifibrinolytic drugs often used for milder IPFD treatment. The best fibrinogen replacement strategy (prophylaxis vs. on demand) in afibrinogenemia is still debated. Similarly, the optimal trough fibrinogen target level for treatment of acute bleeding, and the role of fibrinogen replacement during pregnancy in mild hypofibrinogenemia and dysfibrinogenemia, have not been properly evaluated. The therapeutic arsenal in HHT includes antifibrinolytics and a series of antiangiogenic agents whose potential efficacy has been tested in small studies or are under investigation for treatment of bleeding. However, there is need to address several issues, including the optimal dosing strategies, the potential emergent toxicity of longer-term use, and the impact of systemic antiangiogenic treatment on visceral arteriovenous malformations.

Fitusiran prophylaxis in people with hemophilia A or B who switched from prior BPA/CFC prophylaxis: the ATLAS-PPX trial.

ABSTRACT: Fitusiran, a subcutaneous investigational small interfering RNA therapeutic, targets antithrombin to rebalance hemostasis in people with hemophilia A or B (PwHA/B), irrespective of inhibitor status. This phase 3, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of fitusiran prophylaxis in males aged ≥12 years with hemophilia A or B, with or without inhibitors, who received prior bypassing agent (BPA)/clotting factor concentrate (CFC) prophylaxis. Participants continued their prior BPA/CFC prophylaxis for 6 months before switching to once-monthly 80 mg fitusiran prophylaxis for 7 months (onset and efficacy periods). Primary end point was annualized bleeding rate (ABR) in the BPA/CFC prophylaxis and fitusiran efficacy period. Secondary end points included spontaneous ABR (AsBR) and joint ABR (AjBR). Safety and tolerability were assessed. Of 80 enrolled participants, 65 (inhibitor, n = 19; noninhibitor, n = 46) were eligible for ABR analyses. Observed median ABRs were 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 2.2-19.6)/4.4 (IQR, 2.2-8.7) with BPA/CFC prophylaxis vs 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0)/0.0 (IQR, 0.0-2.7) in the corresponding fitusiran efficacy period. Estimated mean ABRs were substantially reduced with fitusiran by 79.7% (P = .0021) and 46.4% (P = .0598) vs BPA/CFC prophylaxis, respectively. Forty-one participants (63.1%) experienced 0 treated bleeds with fitusiran vs 11 (16.9%) with BPAs/CFCs. Median AsBR and AjBR were both 2.2 with BPA/CFC prophylaxis and 0.0 in the fitusiran efficacy period. Two participants (3.0%) experienced suspected or confirmed thromboembolic events with fitusiran. Once-monthly fitusiran prophylaxis significantly reduced bleeding events vs BPA/CFC prophylaxis in PwHA/B, with or without inhibitors, and reported adverse events were generally consistent with previously identified risks of fitusiran. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03549871.

Fixed- Versus Variable-Dose Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for the Emergent Reversal of Vitamin K Antagonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) is recommended for rapid reversal of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin, yet optimal dosing remains uncertain. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted of PubMed, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE (Wolters Kluwer) databases from January 2000 to August 2023 for clinical studies comparing fixed- vs. variable-dose 4-PCC for emergent VKA reversal with at least one reported clinical outcome. STUDY SELECTION: Abstracts and full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined extraction forms. DATA SYNTHESIS: The analysis comprised three randomized trials and 16 cohort studies comprising a total of 323 participants in randomized trials (161 in fixed dosage and 162 in variable dosage) and 1912 patients in cohort studies (858 in fixed-dose and 1054 in variable dose). Extracranial bleeding was the predominant indication, while intracranial hemorrhage varied. Overall, a fixed-dose regimen may be associated with a lower dose of 4-PCC and results in a reduction in 4-PCC administration time compared with a variable-dose regimen. A fixed-dose regimen also likely results in increased clinical hemostasis. While there is no clear difference between the two regimens in terms of achieving a goal international normalized ratio (INR) less than 2, a fixed-dose regimen is less likely to achieve a goal INR less than 1.5. High certainty evidence indicates that the fixed-dose regimen reduces both mortality and the occurrence of thromboembolic events. Additional subgroup analyses provides exploratory data to guide future studies. CONCLUSIONS: A fixed-dose regimen for 4-PCC administration provides benefits over a variable-dose regimen in terms of dose reduction, faster administration time, improved clinical hemostasis, and reduced mortality and thromboembolic events. Further studies are warranted to better refine the optimal fixed-dose regimen.