Andexanet alfa versus PCC products for factor Xa inhibitor bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1002/phar.2925
C Michael White, Kimberly Snow Caroti, Youssef Bessada, Adrian V Hernandez, William L Baker, Paul P Dobesh, Heleen van Haalen, Kirsty Rhodes, Craig I Coleman
{"title":"Andexanet alfa versus PCC products for factor Xa inhibitor bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"C Michael White, Kimberly Snow Caroti, Youssef Bessada, Adrian V Hernandez, William L Baker, Paul P Dobesh, Heleen van Haalen, Kirsty Rhodes, Craig I Coleman","doi":"10.1002/phar.2925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":20013,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2925","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
治疗 Xa 因子抑制剂出血的 Andexanet alfa 与 PCC 产品:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
以往的荟萃分析评估了用于治疗因子 Xa 抑制剂(FXaI)相关大出血的安赛蜜α(AA)或凝血酶原复合物浓缩物(PCC)产品。然而,这些研究并未纳入近期研究,也未评估偏倚风险的影响。我们对 AA 与 PCC 产品治疗 FXaI 相关大出血的有效性进行了系统综述和荟萃分析,并考虑了研究的偏倚风险。我们在 PubMed 和 Embase 中检索了评估使用 FXaI 并接受 AA 或 PCC 治疗的患者大出血情况的对比研究。我们使用 "NOn-随机研究方法指数"(MINORS)检查表和乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(JBI)病例系列批判性评估工具中的一个问题来评估偏倚风险。随机效应荟萃分析提供了 AA 与 PCC 产品对止血效果、院内死亡率、30 天死亡率和血栓事件影响的汇总估计值。低-中度偏倚风险研究单独进行了荟萃分析,也与高偏倚风险研究合并进行了荟萃分析。确定了 18 项 AA 与 PCC 的比较评估。其中 28% 的研究(n = 5)具有中低偏倚风险,72% 的研究(n = 13)具有高偏倚风险。中低度偏倚风险的研究表明,使用 AA 与 PCC 产品相比,止血效果有所改善 [比值比 (OR) 2.72 (95% 置信区间 (CI):1.15-6.44);一项研究],院内死亡率降低 [OR 0.48 (95% CI:0.38-0.61);三项研究],30 天死亡率降低 [OR 0.49 (95% CI:0.30-0.80);两项研究]。如果不考虑偏倚风险而纳入研究,汇总效应显示 AA 与 PCC 相比,止血效果有所改善[OR 1.36(95% CI:1.01-1.84);12 项研究],30 天死亡率有所降低[OR 0.53(95% CI:0.37-0.76);6 项研究]。在低偏倚风险组、高偏倚风险组或合并偏倚风险组中,AA与PCC在血栓事件方面的差异无统计学意义。低中等质量真实世界研究的证据表明,在提高止血效果、降低院内死亡率和 30 天死亡率方面,AA 优于 PCC。在不考虑偏倚风险的情况下对研究进行评估时,AA 的综合止血效果和 30 天死亡率风险仍明显优于 PCC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmacotherapy
Pharmacotherapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.40%
发文量
93
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmacotherapy is devoted to publication of original research articles on all aspects of human pharmacology and review articles on drugs and drug therapy. The Editors and Editorial Board invite original research reports on pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, and drug interaction studies, clinical trials, investigations of specific pharmacological properties of drugs, and related topics.
期刊最新文献
Delirium event and associated treatment modifications among older adults with Alzheimer's disease: An interrupted time‐series analysis of Medicare data Influence of intravenous iron on bacterial infection risk immediately following kidney transplantation. Real-world effectiveness of monoclonal antibody inhibitors of PCSK9 in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia: A retrospective cohort study. Trends in the appropriateness of oral antibiotic prescriptions dispensed in the United States from 2010 to 2018. Incretin hormone agonists: Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for obesity management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1