Final Study Report of Andexanet Alfa for Major Bleeding With Factor Xa Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Andexanet alfa is a modified recombinant inactive factor Xa (FXa) designed to reverse FXa inhibitors. ANNEXA-4 (Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors) was a multicenter, prospective, phase-3b/4, single-group cohort study that evaluated andexanet alfa in patients with acute major bleeding. The results of the final analyses are presented.

METHODS

Patients with acute major bleeding within 18 hours of FXa inhibitor administration were enrolled. Co-primary end points were anti-FXa activity change from baseline during andexanet alfa treatment and excellent or good hemostatic efficacy, defined by a scale used in previous reversal studies, at 12 hours. The efficacy population included patients with baseline anti-FXa activity levels above predefined thresholds (≥75 ng/mL for apixaban and rivaroxaban, ≥40 ng/mL for edoxaban, and ≥0.25 IU/mL for enoxaparin; reported in the same units used for calibrators) who were adjudicated as meeting major bleeding criteria (modified International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis definition). The safety population included all patients. Major bleeding criteria, hemostatic efficacy, thrombotic events (stratified by occurring before or after restart of either prophylactic [ie, a lower dose, for prevention rather than treatment] or full-dose oral anticoagulation), and deaths were assessed by an independent adjudication committee. Median endogenous thrombin potential at baseline and across the follow-up period was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

There were 479 patients enrolled (mean age, 78 years; 54% male, 86% White; 81% anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation at a median time of 11.4 hours since last dose, with 245 (51%) on apixaban, 176 (37%) on rivaroxaban, 36 (8%) on edoxaban, and 22 (5%) on enoxaparin. Bleeding was predominantly intracranial (n=331 [69%]) or gastrointestinal (n=109 [23%]). In evaluable apixaban patients (n=172), median anti-FXa activity decreased from 146.9 ng/mL to 10.0 ng/mL (reduction, 93% [95% CI, 94-93]); in rivaroxaban patients (n=132), it decreased from 214.6 ng/mL to 10.8 ng/mL (94% [95% CI, 95-93]); in edoxaban patients (n=28), it decreased from 121.1 ng/mL to 24.4 ng/mL (71% [95% CI, 82-65); and in enoxaparin patients (n=17), it decreased from 0.48 IU/mL to 0.11 IU/mL (75% [95% CI, 79-67]). Excellent or good hemostasis occurred in 274 of 342 evaluable patients (80% [95% CI, 75-84]). In the safety population, thrombotic events occurred in 50 patients (10%); in 16 patients, this occurred during treatment with prophylactic anticoagulation that began after the bleeding event. No thrombotic episodes occurred after oral anticoagulation restart. Specific to certain populations, reduction of anti-FXa activity from baseline to nadir significantly predicted hemostatic efficacy in patients with intracranial hemorrhage (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.54-0.70]) and correlated with lower mortality in patients <75 years of age (adjusted P=0.022; unadjusted P=0.003). Median endogenous thrombin potential was within the normal range by the end of andexanet alfa bolus through 24 hours for all FXa inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with major bleeding associated with the use of FXa inhibitors, treatment with andexanet alfa reduced anti-FXa activity and was associated with good or excellent hemostatic efficacy in 80% of patients.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02329327.

Restarting and timing of oral anticoagulation after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: a review and summary of ongoing and planned prospective randomized clinical trials

Anticoagulant-associated traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICrH) is a devastating injury with high morbidity and mortality. For survivors, treating clinicians face the dilemma of restarting oral anticoagulation with scarce evidence to guide them. Thromboembolic risk is high from the bleeding event, patients’ high baseline risks, that is, the pre-existing indication for anticoagulation, and the risk of immobility after the bleeding episode. This must be balanced with potentially devastating hematoma expansion or new hemorrhagic lesions. Retrospective evidence and expert opinion support restarting oral anticoagulants in most patients with tICrH, but timing is uncertain. Researchers have failed to make clear distinctions between tICrH and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICrH), which have differing natural histories. While both appear to benefit from restarting, sICrH has a higher rebleeding risk and similar or lower thrombotic risk. Clinical equipoise on restarting is also divergent. In sICrH, equipoise is centered on whether to restart. In tICrH, it is centered on when. Several prospective randomized clinical trials are ongoing or about to start to examine the risk–benefit of restarting. Most of them are restricted to patients with sICrH, with antiplatelet control groups. Most are also restricted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as they are associated with a lower overall risk of ICrH. There is some overlap with tICrH via subdural hematoma, and one trial is specific to restart timing with DOACs in only traumatic cases. This is a narrative review of the current evidence for restarting anticoagulation and restart timing after tICrH along with a summary of the ongoing and planned clinical trials.

Antithrombotic Treatment of Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: RE-SPECT ESUS Elderly and Renally Impaired Subgroups

Background and Purpose- The RE-SPECT ESUS trial (Randomized, Double-Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) tested the hypothesis that dabigatran would be superior to aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. This exploratory subgroup analysis investigates the impact of age, renal function (both predefined), and dabigatran dose (post hoc) on the rates of recurrent stroke and major bleeding. Methods- RE-SPECT ESUS was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran 150 or 110 mg (for patients aged ≥75 years and/or with creatinine clearance 30 to <50 mL/minute) twice daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. Results- The trial, which enrolled 5390 patients from December 2014 to January 2018, did not demonstrate superiority of dabigatran versus aspirin for prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. However, among the population qualifying for the lower dabigatran dose, the rate of recurrent stroke was reduced with dabigatran versus aspirin (7.4% versus 13.0%; hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.39-0.82]; interaction P=0.01). This was driven mainly by the subgroup aged ≥75 years (7.8% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43-0.94]; interaction P=0.10). Stroke rates tended to be lower with dabigatran versus aspirin with declining renal function. Risks for major bleeding were similar between treatments, irrespective of renal function, but with a trend for lower bleeding rates with dabigatran versus aspirin in older patients. Conclusions- In subgroup analyses of RE-SPECT ESUS, dabigatran reduced the rate of recurrent stroke compared with aspirin in patients qualifying for the lower dose of dabigatran. These results are hypothesis-generating. Aspirin remains the standard antithrombotic treatment for patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02239120.

Randomized controlled trial of single-operator vs. two-operator ultrasound guidance for internal jugular central venous cannulation

OBJECTIVES

Use of ultrasound guidance for central line placement generally requires two operators: one to hold the transducer and the other to guide the needle. The authors propose a single-operator technique and compare it with the two-operator technique for placement of internal jugular central lines.

METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial conducted from June to September 2004 in a U.S. urban teaching hospital. Enrollment packets were randomized to dynamic single operator (D1) and dynamic two operator (D2). The procedure was performed under ultrasound visualization in the transverse plane. The primary outcome measure was cannulation success. A complete Bayesian analysis using noninformative priors to estimate the probability of similarity of outcomes for D1 and D2 was performed. All variables are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were enrolled from the emergency department and intensive care unit. Twenty-three patients were randomized to D1, and 21 to D2. Cannulation success was 96% (95% CI = 85% to 100%) for D1 and 95% (95% CI = 83% to 100%) for D2. There was a 90% probability that the success rates of these two groups differed by less than 10% of each other.

CONCLUSIONS

This one-person technique appears to be equivalent to the standard two-person technique for successful ultrasound-guided internal jugular central venous catheterization with respect to overall success.

Randomized controlled trial of single-operator vs. two-operator ultrasound guidance for internal jugular central venous cannulation

OBJECTIVES

Use of ultrasound guidance for central line placement generally requires two operators: one to hold the transducer and the other to guide the needle. The authors propose a single-operator technique and compare it with the two-operator technique for placement of internal jugular central lines.

METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial conducted from June to September 2004 in a U.S. urban teaching hospital. Enrollment packets were randomized to dynamic single operator (D1) and dynamic two operator (D2). The procedure was performed under ultrasound visualization in the transverse plane. The primary outcome measure was cannulation success. A complete Bayesian analysis using noninformative priors to estimate the probability of similarity of outcomes for D1 and D2 was performed. All variables are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were enrolled from the emergency department and intensive care unit. Twenty-three patients were randomized to D1, and 21 to D2. Cannulation success was 96% (95% CI = 85% to 100%) for D1 and 95% (95% CI = 83% to 100%) for D2. There was a 90% probability that the success rates of these two groups differed by less than 10% of each other.

CONCLUSIONS

This one-person technique appears to be equivalent to the standard two-person technique for successful ultrasound-guided internal jugular central venous catheterization with respect to overall success.