Andexanet alfa versus non-specific treatments for intracerebral hemorrhage in patients taking factor Xa inhibitors — Individual patient data analysis of ANNEXA-4 and TICH-NOAC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data comparing the specific reversal agent andexanet alfa with non-specific treatments in patients with non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) associated with factor-Xa inhibitor (FXaI) use are scarce. AIM: The study aimed to determine the association between the use of andexanet alfa compared with non-specific treatments with the rate of hematoma expansion and thromboembolic complications in patients with FXaI-associated ICH. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data analysis combining two independent, prospective studies: ANNEXA-4 (180 patients receiving andexanet alfa, NCT02329327) and TICH-NOAC (63 patients receiving tranexamic acid or placebo ± prothrombin complex concentrate, NCT02866838). The primary efficacy outcome was hematoma expansion on follow-up imaging. The primary safety outcome was any thromboembolic complication (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, or deep vein thrombosis) at 30 days. We used binary logistic regression models adjusted for baseline hematoma volume, age, calibrated anti-Xa activity, times from last intake of FXaI, and symptom onset to treatment, respectively. RESULTS: Among 243 participants included, the median age was 80 (IQR 75-84) years, baseline hematoma volume was 9.1 (IQR 3.4-21) mL and anti-Xa activity 118 (IQR 78-222) ng/mL. Times from last FXaI intake and symptom onset to treatment were 11 (IQR 7-16) and 4.7 (IQR 3.0-7.6) h, respectively. Overall, 50 patients (22%) experienced hematoma expansion (ANNEXA-4: n=24 (14%); TICH-NOAC: n=26 (41%)). After adjusting for pre-specified confounders (baseline hematoma volume, age, calibrated anti-Xa activity, times from last intake of FXaI, and symptom onset to treatment, respectively), treatment with andexanet alfa was independently associated with decreased odds for hematoma expansion (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.80, p = 0.015). Overall, 26 patients (11%) had any thromboembolic complication within 30 days (ANNEXA-4: n=20 (11%); TICH-NOAC: n=6 (10%)). There was no association between any thromboembolic complication and treatment with andexanet alfa (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16-3.12, p = 0.641). CONCLUSION: The use of andexanet alfa compared to any other non-specific treatment strategy was associated with decreased odds for hematoma expansion, without increased odds for thromboembolic complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".