Dabigatran for prevention of stroke after embolic stroke of undetermined source

BACKGROUND Cryptogenic strokes constitute 20 to 30% of ischemic strokes, and most cryptogenic strokes are considered to be embolic and of undetermined source. An earlier randomized trial showed that rivaroxaban is no more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke after a presumed embolic stroke from an undetermined source. Whether dabigatran would be effective in preventing recurrent strokes after this type of stroke was unclear. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg twice daily as compared with aspirin at a dose of 100 mg once daily in patients who had had an embolic stroke of undetermined source. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS A total of 5390 patients were enrolled at 564 sites and were randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (2695 patients) or aspirin (2695 patients). During a median follow-up of 19 months, recurrent strokes occurred in 177 patients (6.6%) in the dabigatran group (4.1% per year) and in 207 patients (7.7%) in the aspirin group (4.8% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.03; P=0.10). Ischemic strokes occurred in 172 patients (4.0% per year) and 203 patients (4.7% per year), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.03). Major bleeding occurred in 77 patients (1.7% per year) in the dabigatran group and in 64 patients (1.4% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.66). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 70 patients (1.6% per year) and 41 patients (0.9% per year), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients with a recent history of embolic stroke of undetermined source, dabigatran was not superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke. The incidence of major bleeding was not greater in the dabigatran group than in the aspirin group, but there were more clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in the dabigatran group

Dabigatran for Prevention of Stroke after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source

BACKGROUND: Cryptogenic strokes constitute 20 to 30% of ischemic strokes, and most cryptogenic strokes are considered to be embolic and of undetermined source. An earlier randomized trial showed that rivaroxaban is no more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke after a presumed embolic stroke from an undetermined source. Whether dabigatran would be effective in preventing recurrent strokes after this type of stroke was unclear. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg twice daily as compared with aspirin at a dose of 100 mg once daily in patients who had had an embolic stroke of undetermined source. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 5390 patients were enrolled at 564 sites and were randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (2695 patients) or aspirin (2695 patients). During a median follow-up of 19 months, recurrent strokes occurred in 177 patients (6.6%) in the dabigatran group (4.1% per year) and in 207 patients (7.7%) in the aspirin group (4.8% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.03; P = 0.10). Ischemic strokes occurred in 172 patients (4.0% per year) and 203 patients (4.7% per year), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.03). Major bleeding occurred in 77 patients (1.7% per year) in the dabigatran group and in 64 patients (1.4% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.66). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 70 patients (1.6% per year) and 41 patients (0.9% per year), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a recent history of embolic stroke of undetermined source, dabigatran was not superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke. The incidence of major bleeding was not greater in the dabigatran group than in the aspirin group, but there were more clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in the dabigatran group. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-SPECT ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02239120.)

Long-term efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: An open-label extension study

Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy during long-term treatment. Methods: An open-label extension (OLE) study was conducted in adults completing a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, during which they had received monotherapy with either once-daily ESL or twice-daily controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In the OLE study, all patients received ESL (800-1600 mg/d) for 2 years. Primary efficacy outcome was retention time (from baseline of the OLE study). Secondary efficacy assessments included seizure freedom rate (no seizures during the OLE study) and responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline of double-blind trial). Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Of 206 randomized patients, 96 who received ESL in the double-blind trial (ESL/ESL) and 88 who received CBZ-CR in the double-blind trial (CBZ-CR/ESL) were treated with ESL monotherapy (89.3% overall). Treatment retention time was similar between groups, with low probability of ESL withdrawal overall (80% in both groups throughout the study. Incidence of serious TEAEs was similar between groups (7.3% vs 5.7%; 0% vs 1.1% possibly related), as were the incidences of TEAEs considered at least possibly related to treatment (17.7% vs 18.2%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (3.1% vs 4.5%). The types of TEAEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of ESL. Significance: ESL monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated over the long term, including in patients who transitioned from CBZ-CR monotherapy. No new safety concerns emerged

Siponimod versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (EXPAND): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study

International audienc