Key result
Andexanet alfa is linked to ~67% less hematoma expansion vs. non-specific treatments in factor Xa hemorrhage.
Why the study?
Data comparing the specific reversal agent andexanet alfa with non-specific treatments in patients with non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage associated with factor-Xa inhibitor use are scarce.
Does andexanet alfa reduce hematoma expansion in patients with factor-Xa inhibitor-associated intracerebral hemorrhage compared to non-specific treatments?
Cohort (n=243)
Yes
Does andexanet alfa reduce hematoma expansion in patients with factor-Xa inhibitor-associated intracerebral hemorrhage compared to non-specific treatments?
Odds Ratio: 0.33 (95% CI 0.13–0.8)
Absolute Event Rate: 13% vs 41%
p-value: p=0.015
Andexanet alfa is associated with significantly reduced odds of hematoma expansion compared to non-specific treatments in patients with factor Xa inhibitor-associated intracerebral hemorrhage, without increasing thromboembolic risk.
May limit hematoma expansion in factor Xa inhibitor ICH; leaves open net benefit versus non-specific reversal in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Data comparing the specific reversal agent andexanet alfa with non-specific treatments in patients with non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) associated with factor-Xa inhibitor (FXaI) use are scarce. AIM: The study aimed to determine the association between the use of andexanet alfa compared with non-specific treatments with the rate of hematoma expansion and thromboembolic complications in patients with FXaI-associated ICH. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data analysis combining two independent, prospective studies: ANNEXA-4 (180 patients receiving andexanet alfa, NCT02329327) and TICH-NOAC (63 patients receiving tranexamic acid or placebo ± prothrombin complex concentrate, NCT02866838). The primary efficacy outcome was hematoma expansion on follow-up imaging. The primary safety outcome was any thromboembolic complication (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, or deep vein thrombosis) at 30 days. We used binary logistic regression models adjusted for baseline hematoma volume, age, calibrated anti-Xa activity, times from last intake of FXaI, and symptom onset to treatment, respectively. RESULTS: Among 243 participants included, the median age was 80 (IQR 75-84) years, baseline hematoma volume was 9.1 (IQR 3.4-21) mL and anti-Xa activity 118 (IQR 78-222) ng/mL. Times from last FXaI intake and symptom onset to treatment were 11 (IQR 7-16) and 4.7 (IQR 3.0-7.6) h, respectively. Overall, 50 patients (22%) experienced hematoma expansion (ANNEXA-4: n=24 (14%); TICH-NOAC: n=26 (41%)). After adjusting for pre-specified confounders (baseline hematoma volume, age, calibrated anti-Xa activity, times from last intake of FXaI, and symptom onset to treatment, respectively), treatment with andexanet alfa was independently associated with decreased odds for hematoma expansion (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.80, p = 0.015). Overall, 26 patients (11%) had any thromboembolic complication within 30 days (ANNEXA-4: n=20 (11%); TICH-NOAC: n=6 (10%)). There was no association between any thromboembolic complication and treatment with andexanet alfa (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16-3.12, p = 0.641). CONCLUSION: The use of andexanet alfa compared to any other non-specific treatment strategy was associated with decreased odds for hematoma expansion, without increased odds for thromboembolic complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siepen et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Factor Xa inhibitor-associated intracerebral hemorrhage (n=243). Andexanet alfa vs. Non-specific treatments (no hemostatic treatment, tranexamic acid, and/or prothrombin complex concentrate) was evaluated on Hematoma expansion on follow-up imaging (+33% or +6ml increase) (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.80, p=0.015). Andexanet alfa significantly reduced the odds of hematoma expansion (aOR 0.33) compared to non-specific treatments in patients with factor Xa inhibitor-associated intracerebral hemorrhage.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: