Modeling the Clinical Implications of Andexanet Alfa in Factor Xa Inhibitor–Associated Intracerebral Hemorrhage. (23rd November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chuck, Carlin C.; Kim, Daniel; Kalagara, Roshini; Rex, Nathaniel; Madsen, Tracy E.; Mahmoud, Leana; Thompson, Bradford B.; Jones, Richard N.; Furie, Karen L.; Reznik, Michael E.
• Is Part Of: Neurology. Volume 97:Number 21(2021)
• Page Start: e2054
• Page End: e2064
• Publication Date: 2021-11-23
• Subjects: Neurology -- Periodicals; Neurology -- Periodicals; Neurologie -- Périodiques; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012856
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0028-3878

Abstract

Abstract : Background and Objectives: Andexanet alfa was recently approved as a reversal agent for the factor Xa inhibitors (FXais) apixaban and rivaroxaban, but its impact on long-term outcomes in FXai-associated intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is unknown. We aimed to explore potential clinical implications of andexanet alfa in FXai-associated ICH in this simulation study. Methods: We simulated potential downstream implications of andexanet alfa across a range of possible hemostatic effects using data from a single center that treats FXai-associated ICH with prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC). We determined baseline probabilities of inadequate hemostasis across patients taking FXai and those not taking FXai via multivariable regression models and then determined the probabilities of unfavorable 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 4–6) using models comprising established predictors and each patient's calculated probability of inadequate hemostasis. We applied bootstrapping with model parameters from this derivation cohort to simulate a range of hemostatic improvements and corresponding outcomes and then calculated absolute risk reduction (relative to PCC) and projected number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 unfavorable outcome. Results: Training models using real-world patients (n = 603 total, 55 on FXai) had good accuracy in predicting inadequate hemostasis (area under the curve [AUC] 0.78) and unfavorable outcome (AUC 0.78). Inadequate hemostasis was strongly associated with unfavorable outcome (odds ratio 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0–9.9) and occurred in 11.4% of patients taking FXai. Across simulated patients taking FXai comparable to those in A Study in Participants With Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors (ANNEXA-4) study, predicted absolute risk reduction of unfavorable outcome was 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%–7.8%) when the probability of inadequate hemostasis was reduced by 33% and 7.4% (95% CI 2.0%–11.9%) at 50% reduction, translating to projected NNT of 21 (cumulative cost $519, 750) and 14 ($346, 500), respectively. Discussion: Even optimistic simulated hemostatic effects suggest that the costs and potential benefits of andexanet alfa should be carefully considered. Placebo-controlled randomized trials are needed before its use can definitively be recommended.