-
JAMA Internal Medicine Jan 2021Few high-quality studies have clarified whether hypertonic saline is best administered as slow continuous infusion (SCI) therapy or rapid intermittent bolus (RIB)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Risk of Overcorrection in Rapid Intermittent Bolus vs Slow Continuous Infusion Therapies of Hypertonic Saline for Patients With Symptomatic Hyponatremia: The SALSA Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Few high-quality studies have clarified whether hypertonic saline is best administered as slow continuous infusion (SCI) therapy or rapid intermittent bolus (RIB) therapy for symptomatic severe hyponatremia.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risk of overcorrection in RIB and SCI with hypertonic saline in patients with symptomatic hyponatremia.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This prospective, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial enrolled 178 patients older than 18 years with moderately severe to severe hyponatremia and glucose-corrected serum sodium (sNa) levels of 125 mmol/L or less. Recruitment took place from August 24, 2016, until August 21, 2019, across emergency departments and wards of 3 general hospitals in the Republic of Korea.
INTERVENTIONS
Either RIB or SCI of hypertonic saline, 3%, for 24 to 48 hours stratified by the severity of clinical symptoms.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was overcorrection at any given period, defined as increase in the sNa level by greater than 12 or 18 mmol/L within 24 or 48 hours, respectively. Secondary and post hoc outcomes included efficacy and safety of the treatment approaches. The sNa concentrations were measured every 6 hours for 2 days.
RESULTS
The 178 patients (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [12.2] years; 80 (44.9%) male; mean [SD] sNa concentrations, 118.2 [5.0] mmol/L) were randomly assigned to the RIB group (n = 87) or the SCI group (n = 91). Overcorrection occurred in 15 of 87 (17.2%) and 22 of 91 (24.2%) patients in the RIB and SCI groups, respectively (absolute risk difference, -6.9% [95% CI, -18.8% to 4.9%]; P = .26). The RIB group showed lower incidence of relowering treatment than the SCI group (36 of 87 [41.4%] vs 52 of 91 [57.1%] patients, respectively; absolute risk difference, -15.8% [95% CI, -30.3% to -1.3%]; P = .04; number needed to treat, 6.3). Groups did not differ in terms of efficacy in increasing sNa concentrations nor improving symptoms, but RIB, when compared with SCI, showed better efficacy in achieving target correction rate within 1 hour (intention-to-treat analysis: 28 of 87 (32.2%) vs 16 of 91 (17.6%) patients, respectively; absolute risk difference, 14.6% [95% CI, 2%-27.2%]; P = .02; number needed to treat, 6.8; per-protocol analysis: 21 of 72 (29.2%) vs 12 of 73 (16.4%) patients, respectively; absolute risk difference, 12.7% [95% CI, -0.8% to 26.2%]; P = .07). The statistical significance of the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were similar for all outcomes except for achieving the target correction rate within 1 hour.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This randomized clinical trial found that both RIB and SIC therapies of hypertonic saline for treating hyponatremia were effective and safe, with no difference in the overcorrection risk. However, RIB had a lower incidence of therapeutic relowering treatment and tended to have a better efficacy in achieving sNa within 1 hour than SCI. RIB could be suggested as the preferred treatment of symptomatic hyponatremia, which is consistent with the current consensus guidelines.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.org Identifier: NCT02887469.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Hyponatremia; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 33104189
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5519 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2014Current guidelines recommend an intravenous bolus dose of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) followed by continuous PPI infusion after endoscopic therapy in patients with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Current guidelines recommend an intravenous bolus dose of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) followed by continuous PPI infusion after endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers. Substitution of intermittent PPI therapy, if similarly effective as bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI therapy, would decrease the PPI dose, costs, and resource use.
OBJECTIVE
To compare intermittent PPI therapy with the currently recommended bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI regimen for reduction of ulcer rebleeding.
DATA SOURCES
Searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases through December 2013; US and European gastroenterology meeting abstracts from 2009 to 2013; and bibliographies of systematic reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials of patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers (active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) comparing intermittent doses of PPIs and the currently recommended regimen (80-mg intravenous bolus dose of a PPI followed by an infusion of 8 mg/h for 72 hours).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Duplicate independent data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model or a random effects model if statistical heterogeneity was present.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was rebleeding within 7 days; additional predefined outcomes included rebleeding within 3 and 30 days, need for urgent intervention, mortality, red blood cell transfusion, and length of hospital stay. The primary hypothesis, defined before initiation of the literature review, was that intermittent use of PPIs was noninferior to bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs, with the noninferiority margin predefined as an absolute risk difference of 3%.
RESULTS
The risk ratio of rebleeding within 7 days for intermittent vs bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs was 0.72 (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.97) and the absolute risk difference was -2.64% (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, -0.28%, which is well below the predefined noninferiority margin of 3%). Risk ratios for rebleeding within 30 days and 3 days, mortality, and urgent interventions were less than 1 and mean differences for blood transfusion and hospital length of stay were less than 0, indicating that no summary estimate showed an increased risk with intermittent therapy. The upper boundaries of 95% CIs for absolute risk differences were less than 1.50% for all predefined rebleeding outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Intermittent PPI therapy is comparable to the current guideline-recommended regimen of intravenous bolus plus a continuous infusion of PPIs in patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers. Guidelines should be revised to recommend intermittent PPI therapy.
Topics: Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 25201154
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4056 -
Anaesthesia Feb 2018Loop diuretics remain a fundamental pharmacological therapy to remove excess fluid and improve symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure. Several recent... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Continuous infusion vs. intermittent bolus injection of furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Loop diuretics remain a fundamental pharmacological therapy to remove excess fluid and improve symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure. Several recent randomised controlled trials have examined the clinical benefit of continuous vs. bolus furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure, but have reported conflicting findings. The aim of this review was to compare the effects of continuous and bolus furosemide with regard to mortality, length of hospital stay and its efficacy profile in acute decompensated heart failure. All parallel-arm randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until May 2017 were included. Cross-over randomised controlled trials, observational studies, case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews that involved children were excluded. Eight trials (n = 669) were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference between furosemide continuous infusion and bolus administration for all-cause mortality (four studies; n = 491; I = 0%; OR 1.65; 95%CI 0.93-2.91; p = 0.08) or duration of hospitalisation (six studies; n = 576; I = 71%; mean difference 0.27; 95%CI -1.35 to 1.89 days; p = 0.74). Continuous infusion of intravenous furosemide was associated with increased weight reduction (five studies; n = 516; I = 0%; mean difference 0.70; 95%CI 0.12-1.28 kg; p = 0.02); increased total urine output in 24 h (four studies; n = 390; I = 33%; mean difference 461.5; 95%CI 133.7-789.4 ml; p < 0.01); and reduced brain natriuretic peptide (two studies; n = 390; I = 0%; mean difference 399.5; 95%CI 152.7-646.3 ng.l ; p < 0.01), compared with the bolus group. There was no difference in the incidence of raised creatinine and hypokalaemia between the two groups. In summary, there was no difference between continuous infusion and bolus of furosemide for all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay and electrolyte disturbance, but continuous infusion was superior to bolus administration with regard to diuretic effect and reduction in brain natriuretic peptide.
Topics: Acute Disease; Diuretics; Furosemide; Heart Failure; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Injections, Intravenous; Length of Stay
PubMed: 28940440
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14038 -
JAMA Sep 2020Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability due to trauma. Early administration of tranexamic acid may benefit patients with TBI. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability due to trauma. Early administration of tranexamic acid may benefit patients with TBI.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether tranexamic acid treatment initiated in the out-of-hospital setting within 2 hours of injury improves neurologic outcome in patients with moderate or severe TBI.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 20 trauma centers and 39 emergency medical services agencies in the US and Canada from May 2015 to November 2017. Eligible participants (N = 1280) included out-of-hospital patients with TBI aged 15 years or older with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or less and systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher.
INTERVENTIONS
Three interventions were evaluated, with treatment initiated within 2 hours of TBI: out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) bolus and in-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) 8-hour infusion (bolus maintenance group; n = 312), out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (2 g) bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (bolus only group; n = 345), and out-of-hospital placebo bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (placebo group; n = 309).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was favorable neurologic function at 6 months (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score >4 [moderate disability or good recovery]) in the combined tranexamic acid group vs the placebo group. Asymmetric significance thresholds were set at 0.1 for benefit and 0.025 for harm. There were 18 secondary end points, of which 5 are reported in this article: 28-day mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (range, 0 [no disability] to 30 [death]), progression of intracranial hemorrhage, incidence of seizures, and incidence of thromboembolic events.
RESULTS
Among 1063 participants, a study drug was not administered to 96 randomized participants and 1 participant was excluded, resulting in 966 participants in the analysis population (mean age, 42 years; 255 [74%] male participants; mean Glasgow Coma Scale score, 8). Of these participants, 819 (84.8%) were available for primary outcome analysis at 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 65% of patients in the tranexamic acid groups vs 62% in the placebo group (difference, 3.5%; [90% 1-sided confidence limit for benefit, -0.9%]; P = .16; [97.5% 1-sided confidence limit for harm, 10.2%]; P = .84). There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality between the tranexamic acid groups vs the placebo group (14% vs 17%; difference, -2.9% [95% CI, -7.9% to 2.1%]; P = .26), 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (6.8 vs 7.6; difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -2.5 to 0.7]; P = .29), or progression of intracranial hemorrhage (16% vs 20%; difference, -5.4% [95% CI, -12.8% to 2.1%]; P = .16).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients with moderate to severe TBI, out-of-hospital tranexamic acid administration within 2 hours of injury compared with placebo did not significantly improve 6-month neurologic outcome as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01990768.
Topics: Adult; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Brain Diseases; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Double-Blind Method; Emergency Medical Services; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Glasgow Coma Scale; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Neuropsychological Tests; Patient Acuity; Survival Analysis; Time-to-Treatment; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 32897344
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.8958 -
PloS One 2018Meropenem exhibits time-dependent antimicrobial activity and prolonged infusion (PI) (extended infusion or continuous infusion, EI or CI) of meropenem can better achieve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Meropenem exhibits time-dependent antimicrobial activity and prolonged infusion (PI) (extended infusion or continuous infusion, EI or CI) of meropenem can better achieve pharmacodynamics target when comparing with intermittent bolus (IB). However, the clinical outcomes between two groups remain inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate current published literatures by meta-analysis to ascertain whether PI of meropenem can improve clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Medline, Cochrane database and EMBASE were searched. Randomized control trails (RCT) and observational studies which compared the clinical outcomes of PI and IB groups were included and evaluated for quality. The data of studies were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and 4 observation studies with relatively high quality were included in this analysis. Compared to IB group, PI group had a higher clinical success rate (odd ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.31-3.38) and a lower mortality (risk ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.88). The sensitivity analysis showed the results were stable.
CONCLUSION
PI of meropenem was associated with a higher clinical improvement rate and a lower mortality. It is recommended for patients with severe infection or infected by less sensitive microbial.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Infections; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30059536
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201667 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2019Oxytocin for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) prophylaxis is commonly administered by either intramuscular (IM) injection or intravenous (IV) infusion with both routes... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Intramuscular injection, intravenous infusion, and intravenous bolus of oxytocin in the third stage of labor for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage: a three-arm randomized control trial.
BACKGROUND
Oxytocin for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) prophylaxis is commonly administered by either intramuscular (IM) injection or intravenous (IV) infusion with both routes recommended equally and little discussion of potential differences between the two. This trial assesses the effectiveness and safety of 10 IU oxytocin administered as IM injection versus IV infusion and IV bolus during the third stage of labor for PPH prophylaxis.
METHODS
In two tertiary level Egyptian maternity hospitals, women delivering vaginally without exposure to pre-delivery uterotonics were randomized to one of three prophylactic oxytocin administration groups after delivery of the baby. Blood loss was measured 1 h after delivery, and side effects were recorded. Primary outcomes were mean postpartum blood loss and proportion of women with postpartum blood loss ≥500 ml in this open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial.
RESULTS
Four thousand nine hundred thirteen eligible, consenting women were randomized. Compared to IM injection, mean blood loss was 5.9% less in the IV infusion arm (95% CI: -8.5, - 3.3) and 11.1% less in the IV bolus arm (95% CI: -14.7, - 7.8). Risk of postpartum blood loss ≥500 ml in the IV infusion arm was significantly less compared to IM injection (0.8% vs. 1.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.91). No side effects were reported in any arm.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous oxytocin is more effective than intramuscular injection for the prevention of PPH in the third stage of labor. Oxytocin delivered by IV bolus presents no safety concerns after vaginal delivery and should be considered a safe option for PPH prophylaxis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
clinicaltrials.gov # NCT01914419 , posted August 2, 2013.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Delivery, Obstetric; Egypt; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Injections, Intramuscular; Labor Stage, Third; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30658605
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2181-2 -
Anaesthesia Dec 2020The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief, reduced motor block and patient satisfaction. Many institutions still use patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion, and a comparative study between programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion has not yet been performed. We performed a randomised, two-centre, double-blind, controlled trial of these two techniques. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain requiring a top-up dose by an anaesthetist. Secondary outcomes included: motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; local anaesthetic consumption; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. We recruited 130 nulliparous women who received initial spinal analgesia, and then epidural analgesia was initiated and maintained with either programmed intermittent epidural bolus or patient-controlled epidural analgesia using ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg·ml . The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had a programmed bolus of 10 ml every hour, with on-demand patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses of 5 ml with a 20 min lockout, and the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group had a 5 ml bolus with a 12 min lockout interval; the potential maximum volume per hour was the same in both groups. The patients in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had less frequent breakthrough pain compared with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group, 7 (10.9%) vs. 38 (62.3%; p < 0.0001), respectively. There was a significant difference in motor block (modified Bromage score ≤ 4) frequency between groups, programmed intermittent epidural bolus group 1 (1.6%) vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia group 8 (13.1%); p = 0.015. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had greater local anaesthetic consumption with fewer patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. Patient satisfaction scores and obstetric or neonatal outcomes were not different between groups. In conclusion, we found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique using 10 ml programmed boluses and 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses was superior to a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique using 5 ml boluses and no background infusion.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32530518
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15149 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2022Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge characteristics in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring and considered two decades: 2000-2010 and 2011-2021.
METHODS
We assessed research studies and collected data regarding study setting, patient population, fluid challenge characteristics, and monitoring. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane search engines were used. A fluid challenge was defined as an infusion of a definite quantity of fluid (expressed as a volume in mL or ml/kg) in a fixed time (expressed in minutes), whose outcome was defined as a change in predefined haemodynamic variables above a predetermined threshold.
RESULTS
We included 124 studies, 32 (25.8%) published in 2000-2010 and 92 (74.2%) in 2011-2021, overall enrolling 6,086 patients, who presented sepsis/septic shock in 50.6% of cases. The fluid challenge usually consisted of 500 mL (76.6%) of crystalloids (56.6%) infused with a rate of 25 mL/min. Fluid responsiveness was usually defined by a cardiac output/index (CO/CI) increase ≥ 15% (70.9%). The infusion time was quicker (15 min vs 30 min), and crystalloids were more frequent in the 2011-2021 compared to the 2000-2010 period.
CONCLUSIONS
In the literature, fluid challenges are usually performed by infusing 500 mL of crystalloids bolus in less than 20 min. A positive fluid challenge response, reported in 52% of ICU patients, is generally defined by a CO/CI increase ≥ 15%. Compared to the 2000-2010 decade, in 2011-2021 the infusion time of the fluid challenge was shorter, and crystalloids were more frequently used.
Topics: Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Hemodynamic Monitoring; Hemodynamics; Humans; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 35729632
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3 -
Anesthesiology Apr 2020Remimazolam (CNS 7056) is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine for intravenous sedation and anesthesia. Its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have been reported... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Remimazolam (CNS 7056) after Continuous Infusion in Healthy Male Volunteers: Part I. Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacodynamics.
BACKGROUND
Remimazolam (CNS 7056) is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine for intravenous sedation and anesthesia. Its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have been reported for bolus administration. This study aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remimazolam after continuous infusion.
METHODS
Twenty healthy male volunteers (20 to 38 yr, 64 to 99 kg) received remimazolam as continuous intravenous infusion of 5 mg/min for 5 min, 3 mg/min for the next 15 min, and 1 mg/min for further 15 min. Pharmacokinetics of remimazolam and its metabolite were determined from arterial plasma concentrations. Sedation was assessed using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling was performed by population analysis. Hemodynamics and the electrocardiogram were also investigated.
RESULTS
Pharmacokinetics was best described by a three-compartment model for remimazolam and a two-compartment model with transit compartment for the metabolite. Remimazolam showed a high clearance (1.15 ± 0.12 l/min, mean ± SD), a small steady-state volume of distribution (35.4 ± 4.2 l) and a short terminal half-life (70 ± 10 min). The simulated context-sensitive halftime after an infusion of 4 h was 6.8 ± 2.4 min. Loss of consciousness was observed 5 ± 1 min after start, and full alertness was regained 19 ± 7 min after stop of infusion. Pharmacodynamics of Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score was best described by a sigmoid probability model with effect site compartment. The half-maximum effect site concentration for a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score less than or equal to 1 was 695 ± 239 ng/ml. The equilibration half-time between central and effect compartment was 2.7 ± 0.6 min. Mean arterial blood pressure decreased by 24 ± 6%, and heart rate increased by 28 ± 15%. Spontaneous breathing was maintained throughout the study. There was no significant prolongation of the QT interval of the electrocardiogram observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Remimazolam was characterized by a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile with fast onset, fast recovery, and moderate hemodynamic side effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Benzodiazepines; Cross-Over Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Electrocardiography; Electroencephalography; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Prospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 31972655
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003103 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Sep 2016Andexanet alfa (andexanet) is a recombinant modified human factor Xa decoy protein that has been shown to reverse the inhibition of factor Xa in healthy volunteers. (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
BACKGROUND
Andexanet alfa (andexanet) is a recombinant modified human factor Xa decoy protein that has been shown to reverse the inhibition of factor Xa in healthy volunteers.
METHODS
In this multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-group study, we evaluated 67 patients who had acute major bleeding within 18 hours after the administration of a factor Xa inhibitor. The patients all received a bolus of andexanet followed by a 2-hour infusion of the drug. Patients were evaluated for changes in measures of anti-factor Xa activity and were assessed for clinical hemostatic efficacy during a 12-hour period. All the patients were subsequently followed for 30 days. The efficacy population of 47 patients had a baseline value for anti-factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng per milliliter (or ≥0.5 IU per milliliter for those receiving enoxaparin) and had confirmed bleeding severity at adjudication.
RESULTS
The mean age of the patients was 77 years; most of the patients had substantial cardiovascular disease. Bleeding was predominantly gastrointestinal or intracranial. The mean (±SD) time from emergency department presentation to the administration of the andexanet bolus was 4.8±1.8 hours. After the bolus administration, the median anti-factor Xa activity decreased by 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58 to 94) from baseline among patients receiving rivaroxaban and by 93% (95% CI, 87 to 94) among patients receiving apixaban. These levels remained similar during the 2-hour infusion. Four hours after the end of the infusion, there was a relative decrease from baseline of 39% in the measure of anti-factor Xa activity among patients receiving rivaroxaban and of 30% among those receiving apixaban. Twelve hours after the andexanet infusion, clinical hemostasis was adjudicated as excellent or good in 37 of 47 patients in the efficacy analysis (79%; 95% CI, 64 to 89). Thrombotic events occurred in 12 of 67 patients (18%) during the 30-day follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of a descriptive preliminary analysis, an initial bolus and subsequent 2-hour infusion of andexanet substantially reduced anti-factor Xa activity in patients with acute major bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors, with effective hemostasis occurring in 79%. (Funded by Portola Pharmaceuticals; ANNEXA-4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02329327 .).
Topics: Acute Disease; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cardiovascular Diseases; Enoxaparin; Factor Xa; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Hemorrhage; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Male; Prospective Studies; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Recombinant Proteins; Rivaroxaban; Thrombosis
PubMed: 27573206
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607887