scholarly journals Therapeutic vs. prophylactic bemiparin in hospitalized patients with non-severe COVID-19 (BEMICOP): an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial

Author(s):  
María Marcos ◽  
Francisco Carmona-Torre ◽  
Rosa Vidal Laso ◽  
PEDRO RUIZ-ARTACHO ◽  
David Filella ◽  
...  

Thrombophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is mandatory, unless contraindicated. Given the links between inflammation and thrombosis, the use of higher doses of anticoagulants could improve outcomes. We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in adult patients hospitalized with non-severe COVID-19 pneumonia and elevated D-dimer. Patients were randomized to therapeutic-dose bemiparin (115 IU/Kg daily) vs. standard prophylaxis (bemiparin 3,500 IU daily), for 10 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, intensive care unit admission, need of mechanical ventilation support, development of moderate/severe acute respiratory distress and venous or arterial thrombosis within 10 days of enrollment. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria). A prespecified interim analysis was performed when 40% of the planned study population was reached. From October 2020 to May 2021, 70 patients were randomized at 5 sites and 65 were included in the primary analysis; 32 patients allocated to therapeutic-dose and 33 to standard prophylactic-dose. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 7 patients (21.9%) in the therapeutic-dose group and 6 patients (18.2%) in the prophylactic-dose (absolute risk difference 3.6% [95% CI, -16%- 24%]; odds ratio 1.26 [95% CI, 0.37-4.26]; p=0.95). Discharge in the first 10 days was possible in 66% and 79% of patients, respectively. No major bleeding event was registered. Therefore, in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized with non-severe pneumonia but elevated D-dimer, the use of a short course of therapeutic-dose bemiparin did not improve clinical outcomes compared to standard prophylactic doses.

2014 ◽  
Vol 112 (12) ◽  
pp. 1120-1128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Mathew ◽  
Alex Spyropoulos ◽  
Arif Yusuf ◽  
Jessica Vincent ◽  
John Eikelboom ◽  
...  

SummaryLimited evidence exists to guide the use of early parenteral anticoagulation following mechanical heart valve replacement (MVR). The purpose of this study was to compare the 30-day rates of thrombotic and bleeding complications for MVR patients receiving therapeutic versus prophylactic dose bridging regimens. In this retrospective cohort study we reviewed anticoagulation management and outcomes of all patients undergoing MVR at five Canadian hospitals between 2003 and 2010. The primary efficacy outcome was thromboembolism (stroke, transient ischaemic attack, systemic embolism or valve thrombosis) and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding at 30-days. Outcomes were compared using a logistic regression model adjusting for propensity score and in a 1:1 propensity matched sample. A total of 1777 patients underwent mechanical valve replacement, of whom 923 received therapeutic dose bridging anticoagulation and 764 received prophylactic dose bridging postoperatively. Sixteen patients (1.8 %) who received therapeutic dose bridging and fifteen patients (2.1 %) who received prophylactic dose bridging experienced the primary efficacy outcome (odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 2.18, p=0.81). Forty-eight patients (5.4 %) in the therapeutic dosing group and 14 patients (1.9 %) in the prophylactic dosing group experienced the primary safety outcome of major bleeding (OR 3.23; 95 % CI, 1.58 to 6.62; p=0.001). The direction of the effects, their magnitude and significance were maintained in the propensity matched analysis. In conclusion, we found that early after mechanical valve replacement, therapeutic dose bridging was associated with a similar risk of thromboembolic complications, but a 2.5 to 3-fold increased risk of major bleeding compared with prophylactic dose bridging.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-108
Author(s):  
Gilson Soares Feitosa-Filho ◽  
Gabriella S. Sodré ◽  
Juliane Penalva C. Serra ◽  
Rhanniel Theodorus-Villar ◽  
Tatiana Otero Mendelez ◽  
...  

Background. COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. Methods. We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3–0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings. From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28.899 (34.8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34.288 (41.3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0.86 [95% CI 0.59–1.22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3.64 [95% CI 1.61–8.27], p=0.0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. Interpretation. In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3320-3320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Fuji ◽  
Satoru Fujita ◽  
Shintaro Tachibana ◽  
Yohko Kawai ◽  
Yukihiro Koretsune ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3320 Introduction: Edoxaban is an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor in clinical development for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events. The aim of this non-inferiority trial was to determine the efficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with enoxaparin sodium (enoxaparin) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Japan. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, enoxaparin-controlled, multicenter trial. Patients were randomized to oral edoxaban 30 mg once daily (QD) or subcutaneous enoxaparin 2,000 IU, equivalent to 20 mg, twice daily (BID) for 11 to 14 days. Edoxaban was initiated 6–24 hours after surgery and enoxaparin was initiated 24–36 hours after surgery which is the Japanese standard of care. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of symptomatic and asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). The primary safety outcome was the incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Results: A total of 610 patients were randomized. There were no clinically relevant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatment groups. The mean age was 62.8 years and mean body weight was 57.4 kg (Efficacy analysis set). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 of 255 (2.4%) patients receiving edoxaban and 17 of 248 (6.9%) patients receiving enoxaparin (relative risk reduction=65.7%; absolute risk difference -4.5%, 95% CI, -8.6% to -0.9%; P<0.001 for non-inferiority; P=0.0157 for superiority). The thromboembolic events were all asymptomatic DVT (Table). No symptomatic DVT or PE was observed in both treatment groups. The incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events was 2.6% (8/303) vs 3.7% (11/301) in the edoxaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively (P=0.475). Major bleeding occurred in 0.7% of the edoxaban group and 2.0% of the enoxaparin group. The rates of elevated serum aminotransferase levels of more than 3 times the upper limit of normal was 2.6% with edoxaban versus 10% with enoxaparin. Conclusions: The STARS J-V trial demonstrated that oral edoxaban 30 mg QD has efficacy superior to enoxaparin 2,000 IU BID in the prevention of thromboembolic events following THA and is associated with a similar incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events. Disclosures: Fuji: Astellas: Consultancy; Showa Ikakogyo: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Fujita:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithkline: Consultancy. Tachibana:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Kawai:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Toyama Chemical: Consultancy. Koretsune:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, National Lead Investigator. Yamashita:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, National Lead Investigator; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Paid instructor; Sanofi-aventis: Paid instructor; Teijin Pharma: Paid instructor. Nakamura:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithkline: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuccia Morici ◽  
Gian Marco Podda ◽  
Simone Birocchi ◽  
Luca Bonacchini ◽  
Marco Merli ◽  
...  

It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards. This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. vs 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30, 2020 and April 25, 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (Sto arrivando! 6.5, 95% CI, 1.5-11.6). Absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggest that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically non-significant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. In conclusion, no DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
pp. 5549
Author(s):  
Anastasios Kollias ◽  
Konstantinos G. Kyriakoulis ◽  
Ioannis P. Trontzas ◽  
Vassiliki Rapti ◽  
Ioannis G. Kyriakoulis ◽  
...  

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.


2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (06) ◽  
pp. 1240-1248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Spyropoulos ◽  
Julie Zrubek ◽  
Walter Ageno ◽  
Gregory Albers ◽  
C. Elliott ◽  
...  

SummaryHospital-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of premature death and disability worldwide. Evidence-based guidelines recommend that anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis be given to hospitalised medical patients at risk of VTE, but suggest against routine use of thromboprophylaxis beyond the hospital stay. The MARINER study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis using rivaroxaban, begun at hospital discharge and continued for 45 days, for preventing symptomatic VTE in high-risk medical patients. Eligible patients are identified using the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE VTE) risk score, combined with a laboratory test, D-dimer. The rivaroxaban regimen is 10 mg once daily for patients with CrCl ≥ 50 ml/min, or 7.5 mg once daily for patients with CrCl ≥ 30 ml/min and < 50 ml/ min. The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of symptomatic VTE (lower extremity deep-vein thrombosis and non-fatal pulmonary embolism) and VTE-related death. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. A blinded clinical events committee adjudicates all suspected outcome events. The sample size is event-driven with an estimated total of 8,000 patients to acquire 161 primary outcome events. Study design features that distinguish MARINER from previous and ongoing thromboprophylaxis trials in medically ill patients are: (i) use of a validated risk assessment model (IMPROVE VTE) and D-dimer determination for identifying eligible patients at high risk of VTE, (ii) randomisation at the time of hospital discharge, (iii) a 45-day treatment period and (iv) restriction of the primary efficacy outcome to symptomatic VTE events.


Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 31-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Rud Lassen ◽  
Alexander S Gallus ◽  
Graham F Pineo ◽  
Gary E Raskob ◽  

Abstract Thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin after total knee replacement is an evidence-based recommended standard of care. The ADVANCE-1 clinical trial was a phase III randomized double-blind multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of apixaban, an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, 2.5 mg orally bid compared with enoxaparin 30 mg subcutaneously every 12 hours for preventing venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement. Apixaban (or oral placebo) and enoxaparin (or subcutaneous placebo) were begun 12 to 24 hours post-operatively (mean 20 hours) and continued until mandatory bilateral venography was completed at 12± 2 days. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) by venography; symptomatic, objectively confirmed DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE); or death from any cause during the treatment period. The secondary efficacy outcome was the composite of objectively confirmed proximal DVT or PE, or death. The primary safety outcome was bleeding, including major bleeding (defined by ISTH criteria), clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and minor bleeding. All outcome events were interpreted by a central independent adjudication committee without knowledge of treatment. The study hypothesis was that apixaban would be as effective as enoxaparin based on a pre-specified non-inferiority margin in which the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI is &lt; 1.25 for relative risk and &lt; 5.6% for the absolute risk difference for the primary efficacy outcome. A total of 3195 patients from 129 sites in 14 countries were randomized. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 104 of 1157 patients (8.99%) given apixaban and in 100 of 1130 (8.85%) given enoxaparin (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.32, one-sided p= 0.064 for non-inferiority, statistical criteria not met). The secondary efficacy outcome occurred in 26 patients (2.05%) given apixaban and in 20 patients (1.64%) given enoxaparin. Symptomatic PE occurred in 16 patients (1.0%) who received apixaban (2 fatal) and in 7 patients (0.44%) given enoxaparin (0 fatal); the majority of the PE in apixaban patients occurred within 48 hours postoperatively. Major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 46 of 1596 patients (2.88%) given apixaban, compared with 68 patients (4.28%) given enoxaparin (absolute difference 1.46%, two-sided p=0.034). Major bleeding occurred in 11patients (0.69%) who received apixaban and in 22 patients (1.39%) who received enoxaparin (two-sided p=0.053). Elevated levels of liver transaminase enzymes were uncommon (2% to 3%) in both groups; no patient given apixaban met Hy’s criteria. Myocardial infarction or stroke occurred in only one patient who received apixaban (0.06%) and in 5 patients (0.31%) given enoxaparin. The lower-than-expected incidence of the primary efficacy outcome in the enoxaparin group resulted in an undersized study to meet the pre-defined statistical criteria for non-inferiority in spite of a similar incidence with the apixaban regimen. This is the first phase III trial to demonstrate a potential advantage of the new oral anticoagulants for bleeding. The apixaban regimen resulted in less clinically relevant bleeding than enoxaparin 30 mg given every 12 hours. Maintaining this advantage while optimizing efficacy with an altered dosing regimen, either by earlier postoperative dosing or by a slightly increased dose, would be an important advance in patient care.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. LBA-1-LBA-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Harry Roger Buller ◽  
Alexander Cohen ◽  
Madelyn Curto ◽  
Alexander S. Gallus ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract LBA-1 Background: Apixaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may provide a simple, fixed-dose regimen for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of two doses of apixaban (2.5 or 5 mg twice daily) with placebo for the extended treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients who have completed 6 to 12 months of prior anticoagulant therapy. Methods: This randomized, double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00633893) compared two apixaban doses (2.5 or 5 mg twice daily) with placebo for 12 months in patients with venous thromboembolism who had completed 6–12 months of anticoagulation. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism or all-cause mortality. Secondary efficacy outcomes included (a) the composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism or venous thromboembolism-related death, and (b) the composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular-related death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding; the secondary safety outcome was major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Results: The study included 2486 patients: 829, 840, and 815 randomized to placebo, apixaban 2.5 mg, and apixaban 5 mg, respectively. Rates of the primary efficacy outcome were 11.6% in the placebo group, compared with 3.8% and 4.2% in the apixaban 2.5 mg and 5 mg groups, respectively (absolute risk differences of 7.8% and 7.4%, respectively; 95% confidence intervals 5.3% to 10.3% and 4.8% to 10%, respectively; p<0.001 for both comparisons). Other outcomes are detailed in the Table. Conclusions: Both doses of apixaban reduced the risk of symptomatic recurrent fatal or non-fatal venous thromboembolism by approximately 80% without increasing the rate of major bleeding. In addition, both apixaban doses reduced arterial thrombotic events. The lower apixaban dose may be preferred for extended treatment, because of the trend for less clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Disclosures: Agnelli: Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Buller:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Isis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Thrombogenics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boheringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mitsubishi Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Schering Plough: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Curto:Pfizer: Employment. Gallus:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bayer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Johnson:Pfizer: Employment. Porcari:Pfizer: Employment. Raskob:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy; Quintiles: Consultancy; National Blood Clot Alliance: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weitz:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 85-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Beyer-Westendorf ◽  
Sebastian Schellong ◽  
Horst Gerlach ◽  
Katja Jersemann ◽  
Eberhard Rabe ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The current standard of therapy in superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) comprises subcutaneous injections of the indirect factorXainhibitorfondaparinuxfor up to 45 days, which was highlyeffectivecompared to placebo in the CALISTO trial. However,fondaparinuxis expensive, requires daily injections and cost-effectiveness in SVT therapy has been questioned. Rivaroxaban is a direct oral factorXainhibitor which has been shown to be effective in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We hypothesizedthat SVT patientsat high risk for VTE complications may be treated as efficacious and safe with rivaroxaban as withfondaparinux. Methods The SURPRISE trial, a randomized, open-label blinded outcome event adjudication trial, compared rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily withfondaparinux2.5 mg once daily in patients with SVT at high risk of VTE complications (defined assupragenualSVT + age > 65 years, male sex, previous VTE, cancer, autoimmune disease or SVT of non-varicose veins). Treatment duration for both treatments was 45+5 days with an observational period until day 90+10. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite endpoint of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, SVT progression towards thesaphenofemoraljunction, SVT recurrence or all cause death in the per-protocol analysis at day 45. A predefined sensitivity analysis was performed in all randomized patients (full analysis set). The primary safety outcome was the rate of ISTH major bleeding during treatment. Further outcome measures included the composite efficacy outcome up to day 90, each component of the primary efficacy outcome, rates of surgical treatment of SVT and rates of major VTE (composite of symptomatic PE or symptomatic proximal DVT or VTE-related death) at days 45 and 90. The trial was designed to test for non-inferiority of rivaroxaban compared tofondaparinuxwith respect to the primary efficacy outcome and to the rates of ISTH major bleeding. Results A total of 472 patients were randomized (mean age 60.3 years; 60.4% female) and treated with rivaroxaban (n=236) orfondaparinux(n=236). Mean treatment duration was 44.0 days for rivaroxaban and 44.8 days forfondaparinux. Until day 45+5, the primary efficacy outcome (n=435 in per-protocol analysis set) occurred in 3.3% (95%-CI 0.90; 5.73) of patients treated with rivaroxaban and 1.8% (95%-CI 0.05; 3.52) of patients receivingfondaparinux(absolute difference between rivaroxaban andfondaparinuxwas 1.53%; one-sided upper CI limit 4.03%; p-value for non-inferiority 0.025; table 1 and figure 1). Until day 90+10, the respective rates were 7.1% for rivaroxaban and 6.7% forfondaparinux(absolute difference 0.41;one-sided upper CI limit 4.41%;p-value for non-inferiority 0.047). Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban vs.fondaparinuxwas preserved in the full analysis set. No major bleeding occurred and rates of non-major, clinically relevant bleeding were 2.5 vs. 0.4% for day 45+5 and 2.5 vs. 0.9% for day 90+10 in safety set for rivaroxaban andfondaparinux, respectively (table 1).Mean±SDadherence (pill/syringe count at day 45) was 98.9±13.4% for rivaroxaban and 99.3±6.2% forfondaparinux(full analysis set). Conclusions In high-risk SVT patients, rivaroxaban was non-inferior tofondaparinuxin preventing thromboembolic complications with comparable safety. VTE events were predominantly SVT recurrence. Few cases of DVT and PE occurred, which indicates that a 45 days course of rivaroxaban 10 mg orfondaparinux2.5 mg is sufficient to prevent serious complications in this specific subset of SVT patients. As to whether oral rivaroxaban offers a better quality of life compared to 45 days of injections, this has to be investigated in future studies. We found higher SVT complications rates in both treatment arms compared to thefondaparinuxarm in the CALISTO trial. Therefore, patients at higher VTE risk can be identified by use of a simple risk factor assessment, which may help to improve cost-effectiveness of SVT therapy. However, the concept of SVT risk stratification needs to be further investigated, since patients without additional risk factors may not need anticoagulant therapy at all. (Funded by Bayer Vital GmbH, Germany, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01499953) In response to a pre-submission enquiry, the New England Journal of Medicine indicated potential interest in the study results and a simultaneous publication/presentation is targeted. Disclosures Beyer-Westendorf: Daichii Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; LEO: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Schellong:Bayer: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria; Daichii Sankyo: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria. Gerlach:ASPEN: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria; LeoPharma.: Honoraria. Rabe:Bayer: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Daichii-Sankyo: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Bauersachs:Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; ASPEN: Honoraria, Research Funding.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Hobohm ◽  
T Anusic ◽  
S.V Konstantinides ◽  
S Barco

Abstract Background and aims Subgroup analyses of randomized trials and cohort studies on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) suggested that single direct drug treatment may be effective and safe in elderly and “fragile” patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). In a post-hoc analysis of HoT-PE, a prospective multicenter management trial, we studied whether early discharge and home treatment of acute PE is effective and safe in these patients. Methods HoT-PE enrolled patients with acute PE classified as being at low risk based on the modified Hestia criteria and the absence of right ventricular dysfunction. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent VTE, or PE-related death within 3 months of enrolment. The safety outcome included major bleeding. Fragility was defined as age &gt;75 years, a creatinine clearance level &lt;50 ml/min, or a body mass index &lt;18.5 kg/cm2. Results A total of 524 patients were included; of these, 112 (21.4%) were fragile. Mean age was 77 (range 74–80) years. A total of 104 (92.9%) fragile and 372 (90.3%) non-fragile patients spent two nights or less in hospital corresponding to a median hospital stay of 42 (Q1-Q3: 25–47) and 32 (Q1-Q3: 23–46) hours, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in one (0.9%) fragile and one (0.5%) non-fragile patient (absolute risk difference [ARD] +0.4%; 95% CI: −1.1%; +4.4%). Major bleeding occurred in three (2.7%) fragile and three (0.7%) non-fragile patients; ARD +2.0% (+0.3%; +6.9%). All-cause 3-month mortality was low in both groups (0.9% vs. 0.2%; ARD +0.7%, −0.7%; +4.7%). Conclusion Early discharge and home treatment of fragile patients with acute PE appears to be feasible and acceptably safe. The HoT-PE trial supports the notion that these patients should not be a priori excluded from early discharge, but caution is warranted due to a possibly higher risk of major bleeding on DOAC treatment. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): This study was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01EO1503).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document