Enoxaparin followed by once-weekly idrabiotaparinux versus enoxaparin plus warfarin for patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism: a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Treatment of pulmonary embolism with low-molecular-weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, is not ideal. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of idrabiotaparinux, a reversible longlasting indirect inhibitor of activated factor X, to warfarin in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. METHODS: In our randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults with objectively documented acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism attending 291 centres in 37 countries. We excluded patients who were pregnant, had active bleeding, kidney failure, or malignant hypertension, or were at high risk of death, bleeding, or adverse reactions to study drugs. We randomly allocated patients to receive 5-10 days' enoxaparin 1\ub70 mg/kg twice daily followed by subcutaneous idrabiotaparinux (starting dose 3\ub70 mg) or adjusted-dose warfarin (target international normalised ratio 2\ub70-3\ub70); regimens lasted 3 months or 6 months dependent on clinical presentation. Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by study centre and intended treatment duration. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism at 99 days after randomisation. We estimated the odds ratio and 95% CI with a Mantel-Haenzsel \u3c7(2) analysis (non-inferiority margin 2\ub70) in the intention-to-treat population. The main safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding (major or non-major) in all patients at day 99. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00345618. FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2006, and Jan 31, 2010, we enrolled 3202 patients aged 18-96 years. 34 (2%) of 1599 patients randomly allocated to receive enoxaparin-idrabiotaparinux and 43 (3%) of 1603 patients randomly allocated to receive enoxaparin-warfarin had recurrent venous thromboembolism (odds ratio 0\ub779, 95% CI 0\ub750-1\ub725; p(non-inferiority)=0\ub70001). 72 (5%) of 1599 patients in the enoxaparin-idrabiotaparinux group and 106 (7%) of 1603 patients in the enoxaparin-warfarin group had clinically relevant bleeding (0\ub767, 0\ub749-0\ub791; p(superiority)=0\ub70098). We noted similar differences in outcomes in those patients treated to 6 months. INTERPRETATION: Idrabiotaparinux could provide an attractive alternative to warfarin for the long-term treatment of pulmonary embolism, and seems to be associated with reduced bleeding

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)

Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Whether the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban can be an alternative to warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism is unclear. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, we randomly assigned patients with acute venous thromboembolism, who had initially received heparin, to receive edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily, or 30 mg once daily (e.g., in the case of patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 50 ml per minute or a body weight below 60 kg), or to receive warfarin. Patients received the study drug for 3 to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4921 patients presented with deep-vein thrombosis, and 3319 with a pulmonary embolism. Among patients receiving warfarin, the time in the therapeutic range was 63.5%. Edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the primary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 130 patients in the edoxaban group (3.2%) and 146 patients in the warfarin group (3.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.13; P&lt;0.001 for noninferiority). The safety outcome occurred in 349 patients (8.5%) in the edoxaban group and 423 patients (10.3%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P=0.004 for superiority). The rates of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. A total of 938 patients with pulmonary embolism had right ventricular dysfunction, as assessed by measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels; the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in this subgroup was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.2% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was noninferior to high-quality standard therapy and caused significantly less bleeding in a broad spectrum of patients with venous thromboembolism, including those with severe pulmonary embolism. (Funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; Hokusai-VTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00986154.)