{"title":"Andexanet alpha versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in DOACs anticoagulation reversal: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Daniele Orso, Federico Fonda, Alessandro Brussa, Irene Comisso, Elisabetta Auci, Marco Sartori, Tiziana Bove","doi":"10.1186/s13054-024-05014-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is currently a lack of evidence for the comparative effectiveness of Andexanet alpha and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in anticoagulation reversal of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The primary aim of our systematic review was to verify which drug is more effective in reducing short-term all-cause mortality. The secondary aim was to determine which of the two reverting strategies is less affected by thromboembolic events.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two studies were analysed in the systematic review and quantitative synthesis. In all-cause short-term mortality, Andexanet alpha showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.71(95% CI 0.37-1.34) in RCTs and PSMs, compared to 4F-PCC (I<sup>2</sup> = 81%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 0.84 (95% CI 0.69-1.01) for the common effects model and 0.82 (95% CI 0.63-1.07) for the random effects model (I<sup>2</sup> = 34.2%). Regarding the incidence of thromboembolic events, for RCTs and PSMs, the common and the random effects model exhibited a RR of 1.74 (95% CI 1.09-2.77), and 1.71 (95% CI 1.01-2.89), respectively, for Andexanet alpha compared to 4F-PCC (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 1.21 (95% CI 0.87-1.69) for the common effects model and 1.18 (95% CI 0.86-1.62) for the random effects model (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Considering a large group of both retrospective and controlled studies, Andexanet alpha did not show a statistically significant advantage over 4F-PCC in terms of mortality. In the analysis of the controlled studies alone, Andexanet alpha is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2024, CRD42024548768.</p>","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225147/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05014-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is currently a lack of evidence for the comparative effectiveness of Andexanet alpha and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in anticoagulation reversal of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The primary aim of our systematic review was to verify which drug is more effective in reducing short-term all-cause mortality. The secondary aim was to determine which of the two reverting strategies is less affected by thromboembolic events.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.
Results: Twenty-two studies were analysed in the systematic review and quantitative synthesis. In all-cause short-term mortality, Andexanet alpha showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.71(95% CI 0.37-1.34) in RCTs and PSMs, compared to 4F-PCC (I2 = 81%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 0.84 (95% CI 0.69-1.01) for the common effects model and 0.82 (95% CI 0.63-1.07) for the random effects model (I2 = 34.2%). Regarding the incidence of thromboembolic events, for RCTs and PSMs, the common and the random effects model exhibited a RR of 1.74 (95% CI 1.09-2.77), and 1.71 (95% CI 1.01-2.89), respectively, for Andexanet alpha compared to 4F-PCC (I2 = 0%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 1.21 (95% CI 0.87-1.69) for the common effects model and 1.18 (95% CI 0.86-1.62) for the random effects model (I2 = 0%).
Conclusion: Considering a large group of both retrospective and controlled studies, Andexanet alpha did not show a statistically significant advantage over 4F-PCC in terms of mortality. In the analysis of the controlled studies alone, Andexanet alpha is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events.
Clinical trial registration: PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2024, CRD42024548768.
期刊介绍：
Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
