Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Using Cilostazol With Aspirin or Clopidogrel: Subanalysis of the CSPS.com Trial

Background and Purpose: Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel reduces the recurrence of ischemic stroke while significantly increasing the bleeding events compared with monotherapy, the CSPS.com trial (Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study combination) showed that DAPT using cilostazol was more effective without the bleeding risk. In the CSPS.com trial, aspirin or clopidogrel was used as the underlying antiplatelet drug. The effectiveness and safety of each combination were examined and clarified. Methods: In the CSPS.com trial, a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled study, patients with high-risk, noncardioembolic ischemic stroke 8 to 180 days after onset treated with aspirin or clopidogrel alone at the discretion of the physician in charge were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either monotherapy or DAPT using cilostazol and followed for 0.5 to 3.5 years. The primary efficacy outcome was first recurrence of ischemic stroke. The safety outcome was severe or life-threatening bleeding. The analysis was based on the underlying antiplatelet agents. Results: A total of 763 patients taking aspirin and 1116 taking clopidogrel were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Although the clopidogrel group had more risk factors than the aspirin group, the primary efficacy outcome and safety outcome did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. In the aspirin group, the primary efficacy outcome and safety outcome did not differ significantly between the DAPT group and the aspirin-monotherapy group. In the clopidogrel group, the primary end point occurred at a rate of 2.31 per 100 patient-years in the DAPT group and 5.19 per 100 patient-years in the clopidogrel-monotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.447 [95% CI, 0.258–0.774]). Safety outcome did not differ significantly between groups (0.51 per 100 patient-years versus 0.71 per 100 patient-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.730 [95% CI, 0.206–2.588]). Conclusions: The combination of cilostazol and clopidogrel significantly reduced the recurrence of ischemic stroke without increasing the bleeding risk in noncardioembolic, high-risk patients. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01995370. URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ; Unique identifier: UMIN000012180.

Download Full-text

Reduced-dose intravenous thrombolysis for acute intermediate high-risk pulmonary embolism: Rationale and design of the PEITHO-3 trial

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1055/a-1653-4699 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Olivier Sanchez ◽

Anais Charles-Nelson ◽

Walter Ageno ◽

Stefano Barco ◽

Harald Binder ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pulmonary Embolism ◽

High Risk ◽

Functional Limitation ◽

Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Double Blind ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Reduced Dose ◽

Efficacy Outcome ◽

Life Threatening

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.

Download Full-text

Ischemic Benefit and Hemorrhage Risk Of Ticagrelor-Aspirin Versus Aspirin In Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Or TIA

Stroke ◽

10.1161/strokeaha.121.035555 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

S. Claiborne Johnston ◽

Pierre Amarenco ◽

Maria Aunes ◽

Hans Denison ◽

Scott Evans ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ischemic Stroke ◽

High Risk ◽

Absolute Risk ◽

Absolute Risk Reduction ◽

Clinical Impact ◽

Major Hemorrhage ◽

Safety Outcome ◽

Efficacy Outcome ◽

Ischemic Attack ◽

Aspirin Group

Background and Purpose: In patients with acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA), the Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death (THALES) trial demonstrated that when added to aspirin, ticagrelor reduced stroke or death but increased risk of severe hemorrhage compared with placebo. The primary efficacy outcome of THALES included hemorrhagic stroke and death, events also counted in the primary safety outcome. We sought to disentangle risk and benefit, assess their relative impact, and attempt to identify subgroups with disproportionate risk or benefit. Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of patients with mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, patients were randomized within 24 hours after symptom onset to a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor plus aspirin or matching placebo plus aspirin. For the present analyses, we defined the efficacy outcome, major ischemic events, as the composite of ischemic stroke or non-hemorrhagic death, and defined the safety outcome, major hemorrhage, as intracranial hemorrhage or hemorrhagic death. Net clinical impact was defined as the combination of these two endpoints. Results: In 11 016 patients (5523 ticagrelor-aspirin and 5493 aspirin), a major ischemic event occurred in 294 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 359 patients (6.5%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk reduction 1.19%, 95%CI 0.31%-2.07%). Major hemorrhage occurred in 22 patients (0.4%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 6 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk increase 0.29%, 95% CI, 0.10-0.48%). Net clinical impact favored ticagrelor-aspirin (absolute risk reduction 0.97%, 95% CI, 0.08%-1.87%). Findings were similar when different thresholds for disability were applied and over a range of predefined subgroups. Conclusions: In patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, ischemic benefits of 30-day treatment with ticagrelor-aspirin outweigh risks of hemorrhage. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03354429

Download Full-text

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

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1160/th15-09-0756 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 115 (06) ◽

pp. 1240-1248 ◽

Cited By ~ 40

Author(s):

Alex Spyropoulos ◽

Julie Zrubek ◽

Walter Ageno ◽

Gregory Albers ◽

C. Elliott ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

High Risk ◽

Hospital Discharge ◽

Assessment Model ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Medical Patients ◽

Once Daily ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Efficacy Outcome ◽

D Dimer

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.

Download Full-text

Two Doses of Apixaban for the Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.lba-1.lba-1 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. LBA-1-LBA-1 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Giancarlo Agnelli ◽

Harry Roger Buller ◽

Alexander Cohen ◽

Madelyn Curto ◽

Alexander S. Gallus ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Research Funding ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Extended Treatment ◽

Safety Outcome ◽

Efficacy Outcome

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.

Download Full-text

Rivaroxaban Versus Fondaparinux in the Treatment of Superficial Vein Thrombosis - the Surprise Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.85.85 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 85-85 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jan Beyer-Westendorf ◽

Sebastian Schellong ◽

Horst Gerlach ◽

Katja Jersemann ◽

Eberhard Rabe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Research Funding ◽

Absolute Difference ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Vein Thrombosis ◽

Efficacy Outcome ◽

Superficial Vein Thrombosis ◽

Full Analysis

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.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors on Top of Ticagrelor in STEMI: A Subanalysis of the ATLANTIC Trial

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1055/s-0039-1700546 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 120 (01) ◽

pp. 065-074 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Anne H. Tavenier ◽

Renicus S. Hermanides ◽

Enrico Fabris ◽

Frédéric Lapostolle ◽

Johanne Silvain ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Myocardial Infarction ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Artery Bypass ◽

Bypass Graft ◽

Bleeding Risk ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Efficacy Outcome

Abstract Background Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in combination with clopidogrel improve clinical outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, finding a balance that minimizes both thrombotic and bleeding risk remains fundamental. The efficacy and safety of GPI in addition to ticagrelor, a more potent P2Y12-inhibitor, have not been fully investigated. Methods 1,630 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were analyzed in this subanalysis of the ATLANTIC trial. Patients were divided in three groups: no GPI, GPI administration routinely before primary PCI, and GPI administration in bailout situations. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis at 30 days. The safety outcome was non-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related PLATO major bleeding at 30 days. Results Compared with no GPI (n = 930), routine GPI (n = 525) or bailout GPI (n = 175) was not associated with an improved primary efficacy outcome (4.2% no GPI vs. 4.0% routine GPI vs. 6.9% bailout GPI; p = 0.58). After multivariate analysis, the use of GPI in bailout situations was associated with a higher incidence of non-CABG-related bleeding compared with no GPI (odds ratio [OR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32–6.64; p = 0.03). However, routine GPI use compared with no GPI was not associated with a significant increase in bleeding (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.88–3.61; p = 0.92). Conclusion Use of GPIs in addition to ticagrelor in STEMI patients was not associated with an improvement in 30-day ischemic outcome. A significant increase in 30-day non-CABG-related PLATO major bleeding was seen in patients who received GPIs in a bailout situation.

Download Full-text

A dose-ranging study evaluating once-daily oral administration of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban in the treatment of patients with acute symptomatic deep vein thrombosis: the Einstein–DVT Dose-Ranging Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2008-05-160143 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 112 (6) ◽

pp. 2242-2247 ◽

Cited By ~ 243

Author(s):

Harry R. Buller ◽

Anthonie W. A. Lensing ◽

Martin H. Prins ◽

Giancarlo Agnelli ◽

Alexander Cohen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Once Daily ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Safety Outcome ◽

Vein Thrombosis ◽

Efficacy Outcome ◽

Dose Ranging ◽

Deep Vein

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).

Download Full-text

Registration, Publication, and Outcome Reporting among Pivotal Clinical Trials that Supported FDA Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices Before and After FDAAA

10.1101/2021.02.28.21252619 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Matthew J. Swanson ◽

James L. Johnston ◽

Joseph S. Ross

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

High Risk ◽

Medical Devices ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Cardiovascular Devices ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Outcome Reporting ◽

Fda Approval ◽

Efficacy Outcome ◽

Before And After

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.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of early parenteral anticoagulation as a bridge to warfarin after mechanical valve replacement

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1160/th14-03-0284 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 112 (12) ◽

pp. 1120-1128 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Joseph Mathew ◽

Alex Spyropoulos ◽

Arif Yusuf ◽

Jessica Vincent ◽

John Eikelboom ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Valve Replacement ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Therapeutic Dose ◽

Mechanical Valve ◽

Bleeding Complications ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Safety Outcome ◽

Prophylactic Dose ◽

Efficacy Outcome

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.

Download Full-text

Registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk cardiovascular devices before and after FDAAA

Trials ◽

10.1186/s13063-021-05790-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Matthew J. Swanson ◽

James L. Johnston ◽

Joseph S. Ross

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

High Risk ◽

Medical Devices ◽

Primary Efficacy ◽

Cardiovascular Devices ◽

Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽

Outcome Reporting ◽

Fda Approval ◽

Efficacy Outcome ◽

Before And After

Abstract Background Selective registration, publication, and outcome reporting of clinical trials distort the primary clinical evidence that is available to patients and clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (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) cardiovascular devices before and after the FDA Amendment Act (FDAAA) was enacted in 2007. Methods Using 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 FDA’s Premarket Approval (PMA) primary efficacy outcome and the published interpretation of findings with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (positive, equivocal, or negative). Results Between 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 117 (87%) vs 7 of 48 (15%); 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). Conclusions FDAAA was associated with increased registration, result 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.

Download Full-text