Department of Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany (H.B.H., S.T.G., J.B.K., S.S.).
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Giessen, Germany (H.B.H.).
Stroke. 2022 Feb;53(2):532-543. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034572. Epub 2021 Oct 14.
It is unestablished whether andexanet alfa, compared with guideline-based usual care including prothrombin complex concentrates, is associated with reduced hematoma expansion (HE) and mortality in patients with factor-Xa inhibitor-related intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We compared the occurrence of HE and clinical outcomes in patients treated either with andexanet alfa or with usual care during the acute phase of factor-Xa inhibitor-related ICH.
Data were extracted from the multicenter, prospective, single-arm ANNEXA-4 trial (Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors) and a multicenter observational cohort study, RETRACE-II (German-Wide Multicenter Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant-Associated Intracerebral Hemorrhage - Part Two). HE was based on computed tomography scans performed within 36 hours from baseline imaging. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed to adjust for baseline comorbidities and ICH severity. Patients presenting with atraumatic ICH while receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban within 18 hours of admission were included. Patients with secondary ICH or not fulfilling the inclusion criteria for the ANNEXA-4 trial were excluded. We compared ANNEXA-4 patients, who received andexanet alfa for hemostatic treatment, with RETRACE-II patients who were treated with usual care, primarily administration of prothrombin complex concentrates. Primary outcome was rate of HE defined as relative increase of ≥35%. Secondary outcomes comprised mean absolute change in hematoma volume, as well as in-hospital mortality and functional outcome.
Overall, 182 patients with factor-Xa inhibitor-related ICH (85 receiving andexanet alfa versus 97 receiving usual care) were selected for analysis. There were no relevant differences regarding demographic or clinical characteristics between both groups. HE occurred in 11 of 80 (14%) andexanet alfa patients compared with 21 of 67 (36%) usual care patients (adjusted relative risk, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.78]; =0.005), with a reduction in mean overall hematoma volume change of 7 mL. There were no statistically significant differences among in-hospital mortality or functional outcomes. Sensitivity analysis including only usual care patients receiving prothrombin complex concentrates demonstrated consistent results.
As compared with usual care, andexanet alfa was associated with a lower rate of HE in atraumatic factor-Xa inhibitor-related ICH, however, without translating into significantly improved clinical outcomes. A comparative trial is needed to confirm the benefit on limiting HE and to explore clinical outcomes across patient subgroups and by time to treatment. Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02329327 and NCT03093233.
在接受依达赛珠单抗治疗与接受指南推荐的常规治疗(包括凝血酶原复合物浓缩物)的患者中,哪种方法可减少因子 Xa 抑制剂相关颅内出血(ICH)患者的血肿扩大(HE)和死亡率,目前尚未确定。我们比较了在因子 Xa 抑制剂相关 ICH 的急性期,接受依达赛珠单抗治疗或接受常规治疗的患者的 HE 发生情况和临床结局。
从多中心、前瞻性、单臂 ANNEXA-4 试验(依达赛珠单抗,一种新型因子 Xa 抑制剂抗凝作用拮抗剂)和多中心观察性队列研究 RETRACE-II(德国多中心口服抗凝剂相关颅内出血分析-第二部分)中提取数据。HE 基于基线成像后 36 小时内进行的计算机断层扫描。采用逆概率治疗加权法调整基线合并症和 ICH 严重程度。纳入入院 18 小时内接受阿哌沙班或利伐沙班治疗且发生创伤性 ICH 的患者。排除继发性 ICH 或不符合 ANNEXA-4 试验纳入标准的患者。我们比较了接受依达赛珠单抗进行止血治疗的 ANNEXA-4 患者和接受常规治疗(主要是给予凝血酶原复合物浓缩物)的 RETRACE-II 患者。主要结局是 HE 发生率,定义为相对增加≥35%。次要结局包括血肿体积的平均绝对变化,以及住院死亡率和功能结局。
共纳入 182 例因子 Xa 抑制剂相关 ICH 患者(85 例接受依达赛珠单抗治疗,97 例接受常规治疗)进行分析。两组患者的人口统计学或临床特征无明显差异。依达赛珠单抗组 11 例(14%)和常规治疗组 21 例(36%)患者发生 HE(校正后的相对风险,0.40 [95%CI,0.20-0.78];=0.005),总体血肿体积变化的平均差值减少 7mL。两组患者的住院死亡率或功能结局无统计学差异。仅包括接受凝血酶原复合物浓缩物治疗的常规治疗组患者的敏感性分析结果一致。
与常规治疗相比,依达赛珠单抗可降低非创伤性因子 Xa 抑制剂相关 ICH 患者的 HE 发生率,但并未显著改善临床结局。需要开展一项比较性试验,以确认在限制 HE 方面的获益,并在患者亚组和治疗时间上探索临床结局。注册:网址:https://clinicaltrials.gov;唯一标识符:NCT02329327 和 NCT03093233。