Letter by Freeman et al Regarding Article, “Intracranial Hemorrhage in Atrial Fibrillation Patients During Anticoagulation With Warfarin or Dabigatran: The RE-LY Trial”

Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate plus andexanet alfa for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding: Case series

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

To manage factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor-associated bleeding, andexanet alfa or 4-factor prothrombin concentrate (4F-PCC) has been used to restore hemostasis. However, literature on the outcomes for patients who received both andexanet alfa and 4F-PCC is limited.

SUMMARY

We report a case series of 5 patients who received andexanet alfa plus 4F-PCC for reversal of FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding. Patients were included in this case series if they received both andexanet alfa and 4F-PCC for reversal of FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding. They were followed to either discharge or death, and in-hospital complications related to concurrent use of andexanet alfa and 4F-PCC were documented. We report an incidence of thromboembolism of 40% (2 of 5 cases) and an in-hospital mortality rate of 60% (3 of 5 cases). Taking these cases together with those in the existing literature, we found a total of 23 reported cases of safety outcomes with andexanet alfa plus 4F-PCC. The overall incidence of thromboembolism was 35% (8 of 23 cases).

CONCLUSION

This case series adds to the limited literature describing the outcomes for patients receiving andexanet alfa plus 4F-PCC. We encourage other institutions to report safety data on administering both agents.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation by using novel oral anticoagulants apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg compared with warfarin.

METHODS

A Markov decision-analysis model was constructed using data from clinical trials to evaluate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years of novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin. The modeled population was a hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, increased risk for stroke (CHADS2 ≥ 1), renal creatinine clearance ≥ 50 mL/min, and no previous contraindications to anticoagulation. The willingness-to-pay threshold was $50 000/quality-adjusted life-years gained.

RESULTS

In the base case, warfarin had the lowest cost of $77 813 (SD, $2223), followed by rivaroxaban 20 mg ($78 738 ± $1852), dabigatran 150 mg ($82 719 ± $1959), and apixaban 5 mg ($85 326 ± $1512). Apixaban 5 mg had the highest quality-adjusted life-years estimate at 8.47 (SD, 0.06), followed by dabigatran 150 mg (8.41 ± 0.07), rivaroxaban 20 mg (8.26 ± 0.06), and warfarin (7.97 ± 0.04). In a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg, and warfarin were cost-effective in 45.1%, 40%, 14.9%, 0% of the simulations, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and an increased risk of stroke prophylaxis, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were all cost-effective alternatives to warfarin. The cost-effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulantss was dependent on therapy pricing in the United States and neurological events associated with rivaroxaban 20 mg.