Key result
The new fixed-dose FEIBA regimen did not significantly increase the proportion of patients achieving a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 compared to the old regimen (78% vs 50%, RR 1.56, p=0.16).
Why the study?
The optimal fixed-dose strategy for managing warfarin-associated hemorrhages remains unknown and few studies have evaluated the use of Factor VIII Inhibitor Bypass Activity (FEIBA).
Does a new fixed-dose FEIBA regimen improve INR reversal in adult patients with warfarin-associated hemorrhages compared to an older fixed-dose regimen?
Cohort (n=36)
Yes
Does a new fixed-dose FEIBA regimen improve INR reversal in adult patients with warfarin-associated hemorrhages compared to an older fixed-dose regimen?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A revised, higher fixed-dose FEIBA regimen numerically increased the proportion of patients achieving target INR reversal for warfarin-associated hemorrhages, particularly in those with baseline INR ≥ 10, though it did not reach statistical significance overall.
The optimal fixed-dose strategy for managing warfarin-associated hemorrhages remains unknown and few studies have evaluated the use of Factor VIII Inhibitor Bypass Activity (FEIBA). This retrospective cohort study’s primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 following receipt of the old and new dosing regimens. In the old group patients received 500 or 1000 units for an INR < 5 or ≥5, respectively. In the new group patients received 1000, 1500, or 2000 units for an INR < 5, 5–9.9, or ≥10, respectively. Eighteen patients were included in each group. The median (IQR) pre-FEIBA INR in the old and new groups was 6.1 (3.1–12.9) and 5.3 (3.4–13.0), respectively [difference: −0.8 (95 CI%, −7.2 to 6.5)]. The median (IQR) post-FEIBA INR in the old and new groups was 1.6 (1.4–2.1) and 1.4 (1.2–1.5), respectively [difference: −0.2 (95% CI: −0.6 to 0.0)]. A post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 was achieved in 14 (78%) patients in the new group and 9 (50%) patients in the old group (relative risk: 1.56; 95% CI, 0.91 to 2.7; p = 0.16). The post-FEIBA INR values in the patients who did not achieve a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 in the new group were 1.6, 1.6, 1.8, and 2.4. Among patients with a baseline INR ≥ 10, significantly more patients in the new group achieved a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 compared to the old group (86% vs. 17%, respectively). These findings suggest that the new FEIBA dosing regimen may improve INR reversal compared with the previous regimen, particularly among patients with a baseline INR ≥ 10, but larger studies are needed to confirm this observation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ibarra et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Warfarin-associated hemorrhage (n=36). New fixed-dose FEIBA regimen vs. Old fixed-dose FEIBA regimen was evaluated on Achievement of a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.91-2.7, p=0.16). The new fixed-dose FEIBA regimen did not significantly increase the proportion of patients achieving a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 compared to the old regimen (78% vs 50%, RR 1.56, p=0.16).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: