The MARINER trial of rivaroxaban after hospital discharge for medical patients at high risk of VTE

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 ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 187-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry Roger Buller

Abstract Abstract 187 Background New oral anticoagulants hold the promise of simple fixed-dose regimens without the need for monitoring and could make extended use more attractive. Current guidelines advise indefinite therapy in a substantial proportion of DVT patients. The Einstein-DVT study was designed to compare rivaroxaban, a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, to enoxaparin followed by oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment in patients with acute DVT for either 3, 6, or 12 months. In Einstein-Extension, patients who had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulant treatment for either DVT or PE were randomized to receive rivaroxaban or placebo for an additional 6 or 12 months. Study Design Einstein-DVT was an open label, event-driven (target 88 confirmed recurrent VTEs) non-inferiority study. Subjects with a confirmed acute symptomatic DVT without symptomatic PE were randomized to receive either oral rivaroxaban 15 mg twice-daily for 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once-daily or initial treatment with enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice daily) followed by oral VKA treatment (warfarin or acenocoumarol, target INR 2.5, range 2.0 to 3.0). Einstein-Extension was a randomized, double-blind, event-driven (target 30 confirmed recurrent VTEs), placebo-controlled, superiority study that evaluated rivaroxaban 20 mg once-daily for an additional 6 or 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome for both studies was recurrent non-fatal or fatal symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). The principal safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding (major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) in Einstein-DVT and major bleeding only in Einstein-Extension. All study outcomes were adjudicated by a central and blinded committee. Results Einstein-DVT: the ITT-population consisted of 1,731 rivaroxaban and 1,718 enoxaparin/VKA recipients and rivaroxaban demonstrated non-inferior efficacy to enoxaparin/VKA for the primary outcome (rivaroxaban 36 events (2.1%), enoxaparin/VKA 51 events (3.0%), hazard ratio (HR), 0.68; 95% CI 0.44 –1.04, p <0.0001 for non-inferiority, 0.076 for superiority). Major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 8.1% of subjects in both treatment groups (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.76 –1.22, p =0.77) and major bleedings occurred in 14 (0.8%, 1 fatal) and 20 (1.2%, 5 fatal) of the rivaroxaban and enoxaparin/VKA recipients, respectively (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.33 –1.28, p =0.21). The net clinical benefit defined as the primary efficacy outcome plus major bleeding showed a HR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 – 0.95; p=0.027). In the rivaroxaban group, 38 (2.2%) subjects died versus 49 (2.9%) in the enoxaparin/VKA group (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.44 – 1.02). The time spent in the therapeutic INR range during VKA treatment was 58%. Einstein-Extension: the ITT population consisted of 602 rivaroxaban and 594 placebo subjects and rivaroxaban demonstrated superiority to placebo for the primary outcome (rivaroxaban 8 events (1.3%), placebo 42 events (7.1%), HR 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09 – 0.39; p<0.0001; number needed to treat: 15) over a mean study treatment period of approximately 6.5 months. Major bleeding did not occur in placebo subjects and was observed in 4 (0.7%, none were fatal) rivaroxaban subjects (p=0.11). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was noted in 7 (1.2%) and 32 (5.4%) of the placebo and rivaroxaban recipients, respectively (p<0.0001). Two (0.3%) patients in the placebo group died versus 1 (0.2%) in the rivaroxaban group. Efficacy and safety results were consistent across all pre-specified subgroups in both studies. Conclusions Against a background of prolonging anticoagulant treatment for many months to years, this study indicates that oral rivaroxaban, 15 mg twice-daily for 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once-daily, could provide clinicians and patients with a simple, single-drug approach for the acute and continued treatment of DVT that potentially improves the benefit–risk profile of anticoagulation. Disclosures: Buller: Bayer Schering Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4730-4730
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schellong ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽  
Martin Feuring ◽  
Stefan Hantel ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: In the RE-COVER®/RE-COVER II™ global randomized trials investigating the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), efficacy and safety outcomes of dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) versus warfarin were compared. This sub-analysis of pooled RE-COVER®/RE-COVER II™ data compares the safety and efficacy of dabigatran versus warfarin in the Western European sub-population. Methods: In the RE-COVER®/RE-COVER II™ trials, patients with acute VTE, initially receiving parenteral anticoagulation, were randomized to warfarin (INR 2-3) or dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) for 6 months and followed up for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent, symptomatic VTE/VTE-related death. Safety outcomes were major bleeding events (MBEs), a composite of MBEs or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (MBEs/CRBEs) and any bleeding during the 6-month, oral-only treatment period. All outcomes were centrally adjudicated. Data from the Western European sub-population were analyzed using a Cox regression model with factor treatment stratified by study, assuming different baseline hazards per study. Results: This sub-analysis included 1239 patients for the efficacy analysis (dabigatran n = 613; warfarin n = 626) and 1192 patients for safety (dabigatran n = 588; warfarin n = 604) from all 13 Western European countries participating in the RE-COVER®/RE-COVER II™ trials. For the primary efficacy outcome, the rate of VTE/VTE-related death in patients receiving dabigatran was 2.1% (n = 13) compared with 2.9% (n = 18) in those receiving warfarin. However, this difference did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-1.5). Of the safety outcomes, rates of MBEs were similar between both treatment groups (1.4% for dabigatran [n = 8] and 1.3% for warfarin [n = 8]; HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.38-2.71). Rates of MBEs/CRBEs were significantly lower in patients receiving dabigatran than in those receiving warfarin at 5.1% (n = 30) and 9.4% (n = 57), respectively (HR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.82). Any bleeding events were also statistically lower in the dabigatran group (17.5%; n = 103) compared with warfarin (23.8%; n = 144) (HR 0.7; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90). Conclusions: In this Western European sub-analysis of pooled data from the RE-COVER®/ RE-COVER II™ trials, dabigatran was as effective as warfarin in the treatment of acute VTE. There was a significant reduction in MBE/CRBE and in any bleeding events in the dabigatran treatment group. Disclosures Schellong: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Hantel:Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Co. KG: Employment. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Co. KG: Employment. Schulman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Baxter: Honoraria; Octapharma: Research Funding. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 427-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alok A. Khorana ◽  
Charles W. Francis ◽  
Nicole Kuderer ◽  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Thomas L. Ortel ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Ambulatory cancer patients at high-risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) can be identified using a validated risk score. We evaluated the benefit of outpatient thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin in such high-risk patients in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods: Cancer patients at high risk for VTE (Khorana score ≥3) and initiating a new systemic chemotherapy regimen were screened for VTE and, if negative, randomized to either dalteparin 5000 units daily subcutaneously or no prophylactic anticoagulation for 12 weeks. Subjects in both arms were screened with lower extremity ultrasounds every 4 weeks on study. Primary efficacy endpoint was any VTE over 12 weeks and primary safety endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding events over 13 weeks. The study was terminated due to poor accrual. Results: Of 117 enrolled patients, 19 were not randomized due to the presence of VTE on initial screening (N=10, 8.5%) or for other reasons (N=9). The mean age was 59 years with 46% female and 54% male, similar in both arms. The most common primary sites of cancer were pancreas, gastro-esophageal junction, lung and lymphoma. Over three-fourths of patients in each arm had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.Of 98 patients randomized, VTE occurred in 12% (N=6/50) of patients on the dalteparin arm and 21% (N=10/48) on the control arm (hazard ratio, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.23-1.89) (absolute risk reduction 9%, relative risk reduction 42%, number needed to treat = 12). Major bleeding was similar (N=1) in each arm but clinically relevant bleeding was higher in the dalteparin arm (N=7 versus 1 in the control arm) (HR = 7.0, 95% CI 1.2-131.6). There was no difference in overall survival. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis is associated with a non-significant reduced risk of VTE with no effect on major bleeding or survival but increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding in this underpowered study population. The Khorana score successfully identifies patients with high incidence of VTE both at baseline and during study. The high incidence of baseline VTE suggests that consideration should be given to screening high-risk patients in clinical practice prior to starting systemic therapy. Future studies should continue to focus on risk-adapted approaches to reduce the burden of VTE in cancer. (Funded by NIH/NHLBI R01HL095109; clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00876915). Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in the PHACS trial Dalteparin Observation Total Enrolled (n) Baseline VTE, n (%) DVT PE Other reasons for not randomizing Randomized (n) Age, mean (SD), y --- --- --- --- --- 50 60 (10) --- --- --- --- --- 48 58 (12) 117 10 (9%) 6* (5%) 4 (3%) 9 98 59 (11) Gender, n (%) Female 21 (42%) 24 (50%) 45 (46%) Male 29 (58%) 24 (50%) 53 (54%) Primary Tumor Site, No. (%) Gynecologic 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 8 (8%) Colorectal 1 (2%) 3 (6%) 4 (4%) GE junction 8 (16%) 4 (8%) 12 (25%) Lung 6 (12%) 7(15%) 13 (27%) Genitourinary 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 2 (2%) Lymphoma 5 (10%) 2 (4%) 7 (15%) Breast 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 2 (2%) Pancreatic 19 (38%) 17 (35%) 36 (37%) Gastric 4 (8%) 6 (13%) 10 (10%) Other 0 (0%) 4 (8%) 4 (4%) Previous history of VTE, n (%) 4 (8%) 2 (4%) 6 (6%) *NOTE: 1 subject had both DVT and PE at baseline screening Abbreviations: DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PE pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Figure 1. Cumulative Incidence Curves for the Primary Efficacy Outcome in the Intention-to-Treat Population, According to Study Arm. Figure 1. Cumulative Incidence Curves for the Primary Efficacy Outcome in the Intention-to-Treat Population, According to Study Arm. Disclosures Khorana: Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: Randomized trial of dalteparin as prophylaxis. The drug is approved for treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis but not for prophylaxis.. Francis:Eisai: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria; NHLBI: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy. Kuderer:Hospira: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Carrier:Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy. Ortel:Instrumentation Laboratory: Consultancy; Instrumentation Laboratory: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Wun:Janssen: Consultancy. Iyer:Ipsen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentec: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Lyman:Amgen: Research Funding.


Author(s):  
Olivier Sanchez ◽  
Anais Charles-Nelson ◽  
Walter Ageno ◽  
Stefano Barco ◽  
Harald Binder ◽  
...  

Intermediate high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is characterised by right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and elevated circulating cardiac troponin levels despite apparent haemodynamic stability at presentation. In these patients, full-dose systemic thrombolysis reduced the risk of haemodynamic decompensation or death but increased the risk of life-threatening bleeding. Reduced-dose thrombolysis may be capable of improving safety while maintaining reperfusion efficacy. The Pulmonary Embolism International Trial (PEITHO)-3 study (EudraCT 2018-000816-96) is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, multinational trial with long-term follow-up. We will compare the efficacy and safety of a reduced-dose alteplase regimen with standard heparin anticoagulation. Patients with intermediate high-risk PE will also fulfil at least one clinical criterion of severity: systolic blood pressure ≤ 110 mmHg, respiratory rate >20 breaths/min, or history of heart failure. The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of all-cause death, haemodynamic decompensation or PE recurrence within 30 days of randomisation. Key secondary outcomes, to be included in hierarchical analysis, are fatal or GUSTO severe or life-threatening bleeding; net clinical benefit (primary efficacy outcome plus severe or life-threatening bleeding); and all-cause death, all within 30 days. All outcomes will be adjudicated by an independent committee. Further outcomes include PE-related death, haemodynamic decompensation, or stroke within 30 days; dyspnoea, functional limitation or RV dysfunction at 6 months and 2 years; and utilisation of healthcare resources within 30 days and 2 years. The study is planned to enrol 650 patients. The results are expected to have a major impact on risk-adjusted treatment of acute PE and inform guideline recommendations.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  

This pilot registry analyzes data from subjects with COVID-19 infection and mild symptoms, followed and treated at home. Antithrombotic prophylaxis was used in all subjects. A comparison was made with comparable cases that had not used prophylaxis. A control group (36 subjects) without prophylaxis was compared to a prophylaxis group (67 subjects using LMWH and 35 using defibrotide). At two weeks, there were no DVTs or thrombotic disease in the prophylaxis groups. Also, the evolution of the main respiratory symptoms was significantly better in the prophylaxis groups (p<0.05). No patients went to ITU: 4 out of 36 patients in the comparative group went briefly to hospitals. In subjects, using LMWH 1 went to hospital as in the defibrotide group. None was put in ventilation. D-dimer values were fluctuating and not usable to define the presence of a thrombotic condition. This aspect is under further evaluation. No significant side effects were observed. Conclusions: Antithrombotic prophylaxis should be started as soon as possible (home patients) and used during all the high-risk conditions. The importance of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with severe respiratory disease (as COVID), even in the early phases, has been stressed and it is well known; it cannot be considered a new observation and requires adequate, immediate prophylaxis.


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.


Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (6) ◽  
pp. 2242-2247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry R. Buller ◽  
Anthonie W. A. Lensing ◽  
Martin H. Prins ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Alexander Cohen ◽  
...  

Abstract We performed a randomized dose-ranging study, double-blind for rivaroxaban doses and open-label for the comparator (low-molecular-weight heparin followed by vitamin K antagonists) to assess the optimal dose of rivaroxaban for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. A total of 543 patients with acute deep-venous thrombosis received rivaroxaban 20, 30, or 40 mg once daily or comparator. Treatment lasted for 84 days. The primary efficacy outcome was the 3-month incidence of the composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolic complications and asymptomatic deterioration in thrombotic burden as assessed by comparison of ultrasound and perfusion lung scanning at day 84 with baseline. The main safety outcome was the composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. A total of 449 (83%) of the 543 patients could be included in the per-protocol population. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.1%, 5.4%, and 6.6% of the rivaroxaban 20-, 30-, and 40-mg treatment groups, respectively, and in 9.9% of those receiving standard therapy. The main safety outcome occurred in 5.9%, 6.0%, and 2.2% of the rivaroxaban 20-, 30-, and 40-mg treatment groups, respectively, and in 8.8% of those receiving standard therapy. These results with simple fixed-dose oral regimens justify phase 3 evaluations (www.ClinicalTrials.gov no.NCT00395772).


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Swanson ◽  
James L. Johnston ◽  
Joseph S. Ross

ABSTRACTBackgroundSelective registration, publication, and outcome reporting of clinical trials distorts the primary clinical evidence that is available to patients and clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of FDA-approved medical devices. The purpose of this study is to compare registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk (Class III) medical devices before and after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) was enacted in 2007.MethodsUsing publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA summaries, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all pivotal clinical studies supporting FDA approval of new high-risk cardiovascular devices between 2005 and 2020, before and after FDAAA. For published studies, we compared both the primary efficacy outcome with the PMA primary efficacy outcome and the published interpretation of findings with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (positive, equivocal, or negative).ResultsBetween 2005 and 2020, the FDA approved 156 high-risk cardiovascular devices on the basis of 165 pivotal trials, 48 (29%) of which were categorized as pre-FDAAA and 117 (71%) as post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA, pivotal clinical trials were more likely to be registered (115 of 117 (98%) vs 24 of 48 (50%); p < 0.001), to report results (98 of 115 (85%) vs 7 of 24 (29%); p < 0.001) on ClinicalTrials.gov, and to be published (100 or 117 (85%) vs 28 of 48 (58%); p < 0.001) in peer-reviewed literature when compared to pre-FDAAA. Among published trials, rates of concordant primary efficacy outcome reporting were not significantly different between pre-FDAAA trials and post-FDAAA trials (24 of 28 (86%) vs 96 of 100 (96%); p = 0.07), nor were rates of concordant trial interpretation (27 of 28 (96%) vs 93 of 100 (93%); p = 0.44).ConclusionsFDAAA was associated with increased registration, results reporting, and publication for trials supporting FDA approval of high-risk medical devices. Among published trials, rates of accurate primary efficacy outcome reporting and trial interpretation were high and no different post-FDAAA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document