scholarly journals Post-Hoc Analysis of RE-MEDY™ Demonstrates Significant Real-World Net Clinical Benefit for Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in Prevention of Secondary Venous Thromboembolism

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4270-4270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Schulman ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Ajay Kakkar ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
Sebastian M Schellong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Bayer Healthcare ◽  
Cardiovascular Endpoint ◽  
Net Clinical Benefit

Abstract Background: The double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiorityRE-MEDY™ study comparing the direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate to warfarin in the prevention of secondary venous thromboembolism (VTE) showed non-inferiority of dabigatran to warfarin in both hazard ratio (HR) and risk difference for recurrent symptomatic VTE and related deaths. The benefit-risk balance of dabigatran compared to warfarin in secondary VTE prevention can be further explored by evaluating the net clinical benefit (NCB). Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of VTE received dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (n = 1430), or warfarin adjusted to maintain an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0–3.0 (n = 1426), for an additional period of 6–36 months after 3–12 months of anticoagulant therapy. NCB in the RE-MEDY™ study was evaluated narrowly by (1) analyzing nonfatal recurrent VTE, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, nonfatal systemic embolism, all-cause death, and major bleeding events (MBEs), and broadly by (2) including clinically relevant bleeding events (CRBEs). The latter is considered more applicable to real-world clinical practice. NCB was also assessed by center time in therapeutic range (cTTR – the mean TTR of all warfarin patients in each center). Results: The narrow NCB (1) was similar between dabigatran and warfarin (HR 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–1.46). For the broader NCB (2), a statistically significant difference was evident favoring dabigatran over warfarin (HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59–0.91). Stratification of the NCB by cTTR quintiles demonstrated that the positive benefit of dabigatran over warfarin was preserved when comparing to warfarin patients with a good INR control. Conclusion: In the assessment of real-world net clinical benefit in the prevention of secondary VTE, dabigatran was superior to warfarin, irrespective of INR control in the warfarin patients. Table. Net clinical benefit for dabigatran versus warfarin in pooled analyses of RE-MEDY™ Dabigatran (N=1430) n (%) Warfarin (N=1426) n (%) HR (95% CI) p value for superiority Narrow: Composite cardiovascular endpoint* and MBEs (NCB 1) 72 (5.0) 69 (4.8) 1.05 (0.75–1.46) 0.7818 Broad: Composite cardiovascular endpoint*, MBEs and CRBEs (NCB 2) 136 (9.5) 183 (12.8) 0.73 (0.59, 0.91) 0.0058 *Nonfatal recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, nonfatal systemic embolism, all-cause death. Disclosures Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada): Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Hantel:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy.

Influence Of Concomitant NSAID Or ASA On The Efficacy and Safety Of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin For The Treatment Of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis From RE-Cover and RE-Cover II

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1136-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Schulman ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Samuel Z Goldhaber ◽  
Ajay Kakkar ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Half Life ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Dabigatran Etexilate ◽  
Parenteral Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Bayer Healthcare ◽  
Acute Venous Thromboembolism

Abstract Background In two phase III trials, RE-COVER and RE-COVER II, dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a lower risk of bleeding. However, some patients may already be taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), which can have antihemostatic effects. Objectives We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis on pooled data from RE-COVER and RE-COVER II to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with and without concomitant NSAIDs (half-life < 12 hours) or low-dose ASA. Methods Patients with acute VTE received parenteral anticoagulation and were randomized to the addition of warfarin or warfarin-placebo for at least 5 days until the international normalized ratio (INR) was ≥ 2 at two consecutive measurements. This was followed (on discontinuation of parenteral therapy) by continued warfarin (target INR range 2.0–3.0) or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (double-dummy; “oral only” treatment period) for 6 months. Concomitant use of ASA ≤ 100 mg/day or NSAIDs with a half-life ≤ 12 hours was permitted. Primary efficacy outcome: recurrent, symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE, or VTE-related death from randomization (i.e., start of parenteral therapy plus either warfarin or warfarin-placebo) up to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Safety: major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds, measured from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral dabigatran or warfarin alone) up to the end of the 6-month study period. Thus, the safety analysis excludes events associated with parenteral therapy, either in combination with warfarin or with warfarin-placebo prior to commencing dabigatran treatment; it therefore compares dabigatran with warfarin at its full pharmacological potential. Results Overall, recurrent VTE or VTE-related death occurred in 68/2553 patients (2.7%) randomized to dabigatran and 62/2554 (2.4%) randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.54). The Table shows event rates for dabigatran versus warfarin in subgroups with and without concomitant NSAIDs or low-dose ASA. Cox regression analysis showed no statistically significant interaction, indicating similar treatment effects regardless of presence or absence of these concomitant medications. Overall, MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin during the oral only treatment (double dummy) period (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Likewise, MBE/CRBE incidence overall was significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). Results according to concomitant NSAID or low-dose ASA use at baseline are shown in the Table. There was no significant treatment interaction by concomitant medication status for either MBE or MBE/CRBE. Similarly, any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall, and showed no treatment interaction by baseline NSAID or low-dose ASA use. Conclusions There was no apparent difference in recurrent VTE or VTE-related mortality across NSAID or low-dose ASA concomitant medication subgroups. The incidence of bleeding events was similar or numerically lower with dabigatran than with warfarin across subgroups. The results suggest that no increased bleeding risk exists when dabigatran is administered with NSAIDs with a half-life < 12 hours or low-dose ASA. Disclosures: Schulman: Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and (outside the US) for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. This presentation includes discussion of the following off-label use of dabigatran: treatment of venous thromboembolism. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare Inc. : Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée : Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Peter:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.

Influence Of Age On The Efficacy and Safety Of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin For The Treatment Of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis Of RE-Cover and RE-Cover II

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2375-2375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Schulman ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Samuel Z Goldhaber ◽  
Ajay Kakkar ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Dabigatran Etexilate ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Parenteral Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Bayer Healthcare ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Abstract Background In the RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trials, a fixed dose of dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin for prevention of recurrent VTE and was associated with a lower risk of bleeding. It is not known whether this efficacy and difference in bleeding rates is maintained in older patients. Objectives Older patients may be at greater risk of bleeding and/or VTE. Therefore, we performed a subgroup analysis on the pooled RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trial results to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for the treatment of acute VTE according to age. Methods Patients with acute VTE received parenteral anticoagulation and were randomized to the addition of warfarin or warfarin-placebo for at least 5 days until the international normalized ratio (INR) was ≥ 2 at two consecutive measurements. This was followed (on discontinuation of parenteral therapy) by continued warfarin (target INR range 2.0–3.0) or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (double dummy; “oral only” treatment period) for 6 months. Outcomes were centrally adjudicated. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent, symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization (i.e., start of parenteral therapy plus either warfarin or warfarin-placebo) up to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds were counted from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral dabigatran or warfarin alone) up to the end of the 6-month study period. Thus, the safety analysis excludes events associated with parenteral therapy either in combination with warfarin or with warfarin-placebo prior to commencing dabigatran treatment; it therefore compares dabigatran with warfarin at its full pharmacological potential. Results Of 2553 patients randomized to dabigatran, 68 (2.7%) had recurrent VTE or VTE-related death compared with 62 (2.4%) of 2554 patients randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.77, 1.54). The incidences of the primary efficacy outcome (dabigatran vs warfarin) by age group were 3.0% (53/1769) versus 2.4% (42/1748) for patients < 65, 2.3% (12/531) versus 2.5% (13/530) for patients 65–75, and 1.2% (3/253) versus 2.5% (7/276) for patients > 75 years; and in a second age-group comparison were 2.8% (67/2418) vs 2.3% (57/2429) for patients < 80 and 0.7% (1/135) versus 4.0% (5/125) for patients ≥ 80 years. Cox regression analysis showed no statistically significant interaction, indicating that there are similar treatment effects across age groups. MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Incidences by age group are shown in the Table. MBE/CRBE incidence was also significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). The Table shows event rates for each age group. Similarly, any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall. There was no significant treatment-by-age interaction for MBEs or MBEs/CRBEs or any bleeds in either analysis. Conclusions No differences in recurrent VTE or efficacy were apparent across the age groups. Bleeding events increased with increasing age but numerically were similar or lower with dabigatran than with warfarin regardless of age. The results suggest there is no need for dose adjustment of dabigatran according to age for the treatment of VTE. Disclosures: Schulman: Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and (outside the US) for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. This presentation includes discussion of the following off-label use of dabigatran: treatment of venous thromboembolism. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare Inc. : Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée : Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Peter:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.

Influence Of Active Cancer On The Efficacy and Safety Of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin For The Treatment Of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis From RE-Cover and RE-Cover II

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 582-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Schulman ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Samuel Z Goldhaber ◽  
Ajay Kakkar ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Dabigatran Etexilate ◽  
Parenteral Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Significant Treatment ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Bayer Healthcare ◽  
Treatment Interaction ◽  
Active Cancer

Abstract Background In two phase III trials, RE-COVER and RE-COVER II, dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a lower risk of bleeding. Cancer and its treatments are risk factors for VTE and bleeding. Objectives We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis on pooled data from RE-COVER and RE-COVER II to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with and without active cancer at any time during the study. Active cancer was defined as: a diagnosis of cancer (other than basal-cell or squamous-cell carcinoma of the skin) within 5 years before enrolment; any treatment for cancer within 5 years before enrolment; or recurrent or metastatic cancer. Methods Patients with acute VTE received parenteral anticoagulation and were randomized to the addition of warfarin or warfarin-placebo for at least 5 days until the international normalized ratio (INR) was ≥ 2 at two consecutive measurements. This was followed (on discontinuation of parenteral therapy) by continued warfarin (target INR range 2.0–3.0) or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (double dummy; “oral only” treatment period) for 6 months. Primary efficacy outcome: recurrent, symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization (i.e., start of parenteral therapy plus either warfarin or warfarin-placebo) up to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Safety: major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds, measured from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral dabigatran or warfarin alone) up to the end of the 6-month study period. Thus, the safety analysis excludes events associated with parenteral therapy either in combination with warfarin or with warfarin-placebo prior to commencing dabigatran treatment; it therefore compares dabigatran with warfarin at its full pharmacological potential. Results Overall, recurrent VTE or VTE-related death occurred in 68/2553 patients (2.7%) randomized to dabigatran and 62/2554 (2.4%) randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.54). The Table shows event rates for dabigatran versus warfarin in subgroups with and without active cancer at any time. Cox regression analysis showed that presence of cancer was associated with a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of VTE or VTE-related death. However, there was no significant interaction with treatment, indicating similar treatment effects regardless of the presence or absence of active cancer. Overall, MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin during the oral treatment only (double dummy) period (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Likewise, the MBE/CRBE incidence overall was significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). Results according to cancer status are shown in the Table. Patients with cancer had significantly higher rates of MBEs and MBEs/CRBEs than those without. There was no significant treatment interaction by cancer status for MBEs, whereas the treatment interaction for MBEs/CRBEs was significant (p = 0.0257) with a lower rate of bleeding with dabigatran versus warfarin in patients without compared to with cancer. Any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall, and showed no significant treatment interaction with cancer status. Conclusions There was a significantly higher frequency of recurrent VTE or VTE-related mortality among patients who had cancer, but the efficacy of dabigatran versus warfarin was similar irrespective of cancer status. The incidence of bleeding events was similar or numerically lower with dabigatran than with warfarin across cancer subgroups. Disclosures: Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and (outside the US) for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. This presentation includes discussion of the following off-label use of dabigatran: treatment of venous thromboembolism. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare Inc.: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée: Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Advisory boards, Advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Peter:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.

scholarly journals Influence of Thrombophilia on the Efficacy of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin for the Extended Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism in RE-MEDY™

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1544-1544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Schulman ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽  
Ajay Kakkar ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Treatment Efficacy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Factor V Leiden ◽  
Factor V ◽  
Total Study Population ◽  
Extended Treatment ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Bayer Healthcare

Abstract Background: Dabigatran etexilate (DE) was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a lower risk of bleeding, when administered as extended treatment for VTE in the RE-MEDY™ study (in which we evaluated long-term extension of treatment with dabigatran compared with warfarin). Objectives: Thrombophilia is a major risk factor for VTE recurrence. Therefore, we performed a post-hocsubgroup analysis on data from RE-MEDY™ to investigate the efficacy of DE versus warfarin in patients with and without thrombophilia (congenital or acquired) at baseline. Methods: Patients were aged ≥ 18 years and had objectively-confirmed, symptomatic, proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE) that had been treated with an approved anticoagulant for 3–12 months, or with DE in one of two clinical trials of treatment for acute VTE (RE-COVER™ or RE-COVER™ II). Eligible patients were those at increased risk for recurrent VTE. Patients were randomly allocated to receive DE 150 mg twice daily or warfarin (international normalized ratio range 2.0–3.0) for 6–36 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization up to the end of the planned treatment period (6–36 months). No thrombophilia workup was required for enrollment in the trial. Results: Overall, 262/1430 (18.3%) patients randomized to DE and 263/1426 (18.4%) randomized to warfarin had thrombophilia identified at baseline. Factor V Leiden thrombophilia was the most common type (Table). The frequencies of VTE/VTE-related deaths, and of PE, in patients with and without thrombophilia are shown in the Table. Treatment efficacy (DE versus warfarin) was not significantly affected by the presence of thrombophilia. Table DE (n = 1430) Warfarin (n = 1426) Thrombophilia, n (%) No 433 (30.3) 407 (28.5) Yes 262 (18.3) 263 (18.4) Factor V Leiden 131 (9.2) 137 (9.6) Prothrombin mutation 35 (2.4) 28 (2.0) Antithrombin deficiency 11 (0.8) 11 (0.8) Protein C/S deficiencies 25 (1.7) 29 (2.0) Antiphospholipid antibodies and/or lupus anticoagulants 38 (2.7) 54 (3.8) Not tested 735 (51.4) 756 (53.0) VTE/VTE-related deaths, n/N (%) Pulmonary embolism, n/N (%) DE Warfarin DE Warfarin Thrombophilia No 10/433 (2.3) 3/407 (0.7) 3/433 (0.7) 1/407 (0.2) Yes 4/262 (1.5) 6/263 (2.3) 3/262 (1.1) 2/263 (0.8) Not tested 12/735 (1.6) 9/756 (1.2) 4/735 (0.5) 2/756 (0.3) Total study population: Hazard ratio (DE vs warfarin) (95% confidence interval) 1.43 (0.78, 2.61) 1.97 (0.67, 5.76) Treatment (DE vs warfarin) by thrombophilia interaction p = 0.2277 p = 0.9003 p-value from Chi-square test for overall factor effect. Full analysis set. Conclusions: The frequencies of VTE/VTE-related death, and of PE, were similar for DE and warfarin in patients with thrombophilia who were receiving extended treatment for VTE. Treatment efficacy was not affected by the presence of thrombophilia. Disclosures Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada): Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.

scholarly journals Influence of Age and Renal Function on Efficacy and Safety of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin for the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis of RE-COVER™ and RE-COVER™ II

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 594-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Schulman ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Ajay Kakkar ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
Sebastian M Schellong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Dysfunction ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Bayer Healthcare ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
Event Rates

Abstract Background: In the RE-COVER™ and RE-COVER™ II trials, dabigatran etexilate (DE) was as effective as warfarin (W) for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with acute VTE, and was associated with a lower risk of bleeding. Objectives: Older patients and patients with renal impairment may be at greater risk of bleeding and/or VTE. In this post-hoc analysis of the pooled dataset from RE-COVER™ and RE-COVER™ II, we assessed rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding with DE and W in patients below and above 75 years according to renal function (normal, or mildly or moderately impaired). Methods: Patients with acute VTE, initially on parenteral anticoagulation, were randomized to either W (started in parallel; international normalized ratio range 2.0‒3.0) or DE 150 mg twice daily for 6 months. Primary efficacy outcome was recurrent, symptomatic VTE/VTE-related death from randomization to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Safety outcomes included centrally adjudicated major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (MBEs/CRBEs), and any bleeds from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral DE or W alone) to the end of the 6-month period. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCL) ≤ 30 mL/min (hence not meeting inclusion criteria) were excluded from this analysis. Results: In all patients aged < 75 years, recurrent VTE/VTE-related death occurred in 65/2241 (2.9%) and 52/2218 (2.3%) patients with DE and W, respectively. In the analysis by renal function, event rates for DE vs W in subgroups with CrCL ≥ 80 (normal), 50–< 80 (mild renal dysfunction), and 30–< 50 mL/min (moderate renal dysfunction), respectively, were 3.1% (57/1828) vs 2.5% (45/1780), 2.1% (8/381) vs 1.5% (6/403), and 0% (0/32) vs 2.9% (1/35). In all patients aged ≥ 75 years, recurrent VTE/VTE-related death occurred in 3/272 (1.1%) and 10/304 (3.3%) patients with DE and W, respectively. Event rates for DE vs W in the normal, mild and moderate renal dysfunction subgroups, respectively, were 3.1% (1/32) vs 5.2% (3/58), 1.3% (2/158) vs 1.9% (3/158), and 0% (0/82) vs 4.5% (4/88). For the safety endpoints, in all patients aged < 75 years, MBEs occurred in (DE vs W, respectively) 16/2169 (0.7%) vs 29/2146 (1.4%) patients, MBEs/CRBEs in 87/2169 (4.0%) vs 153/2146 (7.1%) patients, and any bleeding in 303/2169 (14.0%) vs 430/2146 (20.0%) patients. The table shows event rates by renal function; bleeding rates in this age group were numerically lower for DE than W across all categories of renal function, except for rates of MBEs in patients with moderate dysfunction (6.7% vs 6.5%). Among the older patient group, bleeding event rates for DE vs W were 8/252 (3.2%) vs 11/287 (3.8%) for MBEs, 21/252 (7.9%) vs 35/287 (12.2%) for MBEs/CRBEs, and 48/252 (18.3%) vs 68/287 (23.0%) for any bleeding. The table shows event rates by renal function; the incidences of bleeding were numerically lower for DE vs W across all categories of renal function in older patients, except for MBEs (5.3% vs 3.6%) and MBEs/CRBEs (11.8% vs 9.6%) in the subgroup with moderate renal dysfunction. TablePatientsMBEsPatients, n/N (%)MBEs/CRBEsPatients, n/N (%)Any bleedsPatients, n/N (%)Age(year)CrCL (mL/min)DEWDEWDEW< 7530‒< 502/30 (6.7)2/31 (6.5)3/30 (10.0)4/31 (12.9)6/30 (20.0)8/31 (25.8)50‒< 805/359 (1.4)10/387 (2.6)26/359 (7.2)43/387 (11.1)70/359 (19.5)90/387 (23.3)≥ 809/1780 (0.5)17/1728 (1.0)58/1780 (3.3)106/1728 (6.1)227/1780 (12.8)332/1728 (19.2)≥ 7530‒< 504/76 (5.3)3/83 (3.6)9/76 (11.8)8/83 (9.6)15/76 (19.7)21/83 (25.3)50‒< 804/145 (2.8)6/149 (4.0)10/145 (6.9)23/149 (15.4)27/145 (18.6)35/149 (23.5)≥ 800/31 (0.0)2/55 (3.6)1/31 (3.2)4/55 (7.3)4/31 (12.9 )10/55 (18.2) Conclusions: In DE-treated patients, no increase in VTE recurrence was apparent for older (≥ 75 years) vs younger (< 75 years) patients. Recurrent VTE rates decreased with declining renal function. Bleeding events increased with declining renal function in both age groups irrespective of treatment, but in most subgroups were numerically less frequent with DE than with W. Disclosures Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada): Consultancy. Schellong:Daiichi Sankyo: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Hantel:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy.

Influence Of Renal Function On The Efficacy and Safety Of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin For The Treatment Of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis From RE-Cover and RE-Cover II

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 212-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Schulman ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Samuel Z Goldhaber ◽  
Ajay Kakkar ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Renal Dysfunction ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Dabigatran Etexilate ◽  
Parenteral Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Significant Treatment ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Treatment Interaction

Abstract Background For treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin with a lower risk of bleeding in two phase III trials, RE-COVER and RE-COVER II. As dabigatran is predominantly renally eliminated, its plasma concentration may be elevated in renally impaired patients, potentially increasing the bleeding risk. Warfarin is primarily metabolized hepatically. Objectives We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis on pooled data from RE-COVER and RE-COVER II to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin according to renal function. Methods Patients with acute VTE received parenteral anticoagulation and were randomized to the addition of warfarin or warfarin-placebo for at least 5 days until the international normalized ratio (INR) was ≥ 2 at two consecutive measurements. This was followed (on discontinuation of parenteral therapy) by continued warfarin (target INR range 2.0–3.0) or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (double dummy; “oral only” treatment period) for 6 months. Primary efficacy outcome: recurrent, symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization (i.e., start of parenteral therapy plus either warfarin or warfarin-placebo) up to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Safety: major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds, measured from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral dabigatran or warfarin alone) up to the end of the 6-month study period. Thus, the safety analysis excludes events associated with parenteral therapy either in combination with warfarin or with warfarin-placebo prior to commencing dabigatran treatment; it therefore compares dabigatran with warfarin at its full pharmacological potential. Results Overall, recurrent VTE or VTE-related death occurred in 68/2553 patients (2.7%) randomized to dabigatran and 62/2554 (2.4%) randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.54). Event rates for dabigatran vs warfarin in subgroups with CrCl ≥ 80, 50 to < 80 (mild renal dysfunction), and 30 to < 50 mL/minute (moderate renal dysfunction), respectively, were: 3.1% (58/1860) vs 2.6% (48/1838), 1.9% (10/539) vs 1.6% (9/561), and 0% (0/114) vs 4.1% (5/123). Cox regression analysis showed no statistically significant interaction, indicating similar treatment effects across the CrCL groups. Overall, MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran vs warfarin during the oral treatment only (double-dummy) period (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Results for the respective renal function subgroups are shown in the Table. There was no significant treatment interaction by renal function. MBE/CRBE incidence overall was significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). Renal function subgroup results are shown in the Table. There was no significant treatment interaction by renal function. Similarly, any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall, and showed no treatment interaction by renal function. Conclusions There was no apparent difference in recurrent VTE or VTE-related mortality across renal function groups. Bleeding events increased with declining renal function but were similar or numerically lower with dabigatran than with warfarin. The results suggest no need for dose adjustment of dabigatran in patients with mild or moderate renal dysfunction. Disclosures: Schulman: Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and (outside the US) for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. This presentation includes discussion of the following off-label use of dabigatran: treatment of venous thromboembolism. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Portola: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare Inc: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée : Consultancy. Schellong:Daiichi Sankyo: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Advisory boards, Advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Peter:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.

scholarly journals Association of Bleeding Severity with Mortality with in-Hospital and Extended Thromboprophylaxis in the Medically Ill in the Magellan Trial

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2441-2441
Author(s):  
Alex C. Spyropoulos ◽  
Gary E. Raskob ◽  
Alexander T Cohen ◽  
Walter Ageno ◽  
Jeffrey I. Weitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Bayer Healthcare ◽  
Equity Ownership

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common after hospitalization in acutely ill medical patients, yet extended thromboprophylaxis has not been widely implemented due to concerns about bleeding. The MAGELLAN study (NCT00571649) evaluated whether rivaroxaban (10 mg QD for 35±4 days) compared with enoxaparin (40 mg QD for 10±4 days) followed by placebo could prevent asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic VTE, and VTE-related death. Through Day 35, rivaroxaban was superior to enoxaparin/placebo in the modified intent-to-treat population (4.4% vs 5.7%, RR 0.77, 95%CI, 0.62 to 0.96, p=0.02), but there was an increase in clinically relevant bleeding, the composite of major and non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding (4.1% vs 1,7%, RR 2.5, 95%CI 1.85-3.25, p<0.001). Although major bleeding has been associated with increased mortality, the relationship between NMCR bleeding and all-cause mortality (ACM) is not established. We hypothesized that subjects in the MAGELLAN trial with major bleeding but not those with NMCR bleeding, would be at an increased risk of ACM irrespective of treatment group. Methods: We evaluated all bleeding events in subjects taking at least one dose of study drug from randomization until 2 days after the last dose (safety population) and their association with ACM through the Day 90 visit in 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) subjects with no major or NMCR bleeding; (2) subjects whose first event was NMCR bleeding; and (3) subjects whose first event was major bleeding. Subjects only developing minimal or trivial bleeding were grouped with those who had no clinically relevant bleeding. Using a Cox proportional hazards model that included the bleeding group variable and baseline covariates significantly associated with ACM at p<0.05 (age, BMI, history of cancer, history of anemia, inflammatory disease, acute ischemic stroke, and acute respiratory insufficiency), we compared the risk of ACM in subjects with and without bleeding events. Results: The incidence of ACM for subjects who had NMCR bleeding was numerically higher but not significantly increased compared with subjects with no bleeding (20/176, 11.4% vs 468/7763, 6.0%, HR 1.41 95%CI 0.88, 2.25, p=0.151), while subjects with major bleeding were at a significantly increased risk of death (28/59, 47.5% vs 468/7763, 6.0%, HR 7.74 95%CI 5.16, 11.59, p<0.0001). Results of landmark analyses from the first bleeding event or end of treatment + 2 days to ACM for the three groups are displayed (Figure). Limitations: This analysis was post hoc and may have been underpowered to detect differences in ACM associated with NMCR bleeding. Conclusion: Major bleeding was associated with a significantly increased risk of ACM but NMCR bleeding was not. This suggests that a modest increase in NMCR bleeding associated with extended thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban may be acceptable to prevent VTE. Strategies to better select patients at lower risk of bleeding may improve the benefit risk profile of extended thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban. Disclosures Spyropoulos: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; ATLAS (Colorado Prevention Center): Consultancy; Janssen R&D, LLC: Consultancy. Raskob:Janssen R&D, LLC: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Tetherex: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Anthos: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Cohen:Boston Scientific: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GLG: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; ACI Clinical: Consultancy; Aspen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; McKinsey: Consultancy; Navigant: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Temasek Capital: Consultancy; TRN: Consultancy; UK Government Health Select Committee: Other: advised the UK Government Health Select Committee, the all-party working group on thrombosis, the Department of Health, and the NHS, on the prevention of VTE; Lifeblood: Other: advisor to Lifeblood: the thrombosis charity and is the founder of the European educational charity the Coalition to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism. Ageno:Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: conference and travel support; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research support,travel support ; BMS Pfizer: Other: travel support; Aspen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support. Weitz:Janssen R&D, LLC: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spiro:Bayer U.S. LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lu:Janssen R&D, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lipardi:Janssen Research and Develompent: Employment, Equity Ownership. Barnathan:Janssen Research and Development LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. OffLabel Disclosure: Rivaroxaban is a Factor Xa inhibitor. It is currently under review by FDA for approval as thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism.

scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes for Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) Treated with Tisagenlecleucel: Update from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) Registry

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 428-428
Author(s):  
Samuel John ◽  
Michael A. Pulsipher ◽  
Amy Moskop ◽  
Zhen-Huan Hu ◽  
Christine L. Phillips ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Advisory Boards

Abstract Background: Tisagenlecleucel is an autologous CD19-directed T-cell immunotherapy indicated in the USA for treatment of patients up to 25 years (y) of age with B-cell ALL that is refractory or in second or later relapse. Overall response rate was 82% with 24 months' (mo) follow-up in the registrational ELIANA trial [Grupp et al. Blood 2018]; pooled data from ELIANA and ENSIGN revealed similar outcomes upon stratification by age (&lt;18y and ≥18y) [Rives et al. HemaSphere 2018]. Early real-world data for tisagenlecleucel from the CIBMTR registry reported similar efficacy to ELIANA with no new safety signals [Pasquini et al. Blood Adv 2020]. Outcomes are reported here for patients who received tisagenlecleucel in the real-world setting, stratified by age (&lt;18y and ≥18y). Methods: This noninterventional prospective study used data from the CIBMTR registry and included patients aged ≤25y with R/R ALL. Eligible patients received commercial tisagenlecleucel after August 30, 2017, in the USA or Canada. Age-specific analyses were conducted in patients aged &lt;18y and ≥18y at the time of infusion. Efficacy was assessed in patients with ≥12mo follow-up at each reporting center and included best overall response (BOR) of complete remission (CR), duration of response (DOR), event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Safety was evaluated in all patients who completed the first (100-day) assessment. Adverse events (AEs) of interest - including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity - were monitored throughout the reporting period. CRS and neurotoxicity were graded using the ASTCT criteria. Results: As of October 30, 2020, data from 451 patients were collected, all of whom received tisagenlecleucel. The median time from receipt of leukapheresis product at the manufacturing site to shipment was 27 days (interquartile range: 25-34). Patients aged ≥18y appeared to have greater disease burden at baseline than those aged &lt;18y, indicated by lower rates of morphologic CR and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity prior to infusion. Older patients were also more heavily pre-treated before infusion. All other patient characteristics at baseline were comparable between the two groups (Table 1). In the efficacy set (median follow-up 21.5mo; range 11.9-37.2; N=322), BOR of CR was 87.3% (95% CI 83.1-90.7); MRD status was available for 150 patients, of whom 98.7% were MRD negative. Median DOR was 23.9mo (95% CI 12.3-not estimable [NE]), median EFS was 14.0mo (9.8-24.8) and median RFS was 23.9mo (13.0-NE); 12mo EFS and RFS were 54.3% and 62.3%, respectively. For OS, the median was not reached. Efficacy outcomes were generally similar across age groups (Table 1). In the safety set (median follow-up 20.0mo; range 2.6-37.2; N=400), most AEs of interest occurred within 100 days of infusion. Any-grade CRS was observed in 58.0% of patients; Grade ≥3 in 17.8%. Treatment for CRS included tocilizumab (n=113; 28.3% of all patients) and corticosteroids (n=31; 7.8%). Neurotoxicity was observed in 27.3% of patients; Grade ≥3 in 10.0%. Treatment for neurotoxicity included tocilizumab (n=17; 4.3% of all patients) and corticosteroids (n=28; 7.0%). During the reporting period, 82 (20.5%) patients died; the most common cause of death was recurrence/persistence/progression of primary disease. CRS and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell-related encephalopathy syndrome were the primary cause of death in 2 patients and 1 patient, respectively. Overall, safety data were similar across age groups, although more patients aged ≥18y experienced any-grade CRS or neurotoxicity and were subsequently treated (Table 1). Conclusions: Updated registry data for pediatric and young adult patients with R/R ALL treated with tisagenlecleucel revealed that patients aged ≥18y had a greater disease burden and were more heavily pre-treated at baseline than patients aged &lt;18y. The overall efficacy and safety profiles of commercial tisagenlecleucel reflected those observed in the clinical trial setting [Grupp et al. Blood 2018; Rives et al. HemaSphere 2018] and were broadly consistent across age groups. Some important differences between the &lt;18y and ≥18y groups were identified, which may point to challenges in timely identification and/or referral of older patients for CAR-T cell therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pulsipher: Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Phillips: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Margossian: Cue Biopharma, Inc.: Current Employment; Novartis: Other: Ad hoc Advisory Boards. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; Novartis: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; Iovance: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Other: Ad hoc advisory boards. Martin: Novartis: Other: Local PI for clinical trial; Bluebird Bio: Other: Local PI for clinical trial. Rouce: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tessa Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Tiwari: Novartis Healthcare private limited: Current Employment. Redondo: Novartis: Current Employment. Willert: Novartis: Current Employment. Agarwal: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grupp: Novartis, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, and Janssen/JnJ: Consultancy; Novartis, Kite, Vertex, and Servier: Research Funding; Novartis, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Vertex, Allogene and Cabaletta: Other: Study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Real World Use of Extended Half-Life Products and the Impact on Bleeding Events and Joint Health in the United States

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1195-1195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn M. Malec ◽  
Char M Witmer ◽  
Julie Jaffray ◽  
Peter A. Kouides ◽  
Kristina M. Haley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hemophilia A ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Hemophilia B ◽  
Severe Hemophilia ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Joint Health

Abstract Background : The hemophilia treatment landscape has evolved substantially in the last several years with the approval of extended half-life (EHL) products which reduce the burden of prophylaxis. Data reported from the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN) as of June 2017 indicate that 21% of patients with moderate or severe hemophilia A, and 42% of patients with moderate or severe hemophilia B, receive prophylaxis utilizing an EHL. As new treatments become available and are adopted into practice, it is important to recognize the need for evaluation of efficacy, safety, and economic impact of their use outside of the clinical trial setting. We aimed to characterize the real world impact of EHL products by collecting detailed information on bleeding rates, joint health and quality of life amongst patients cared for at ATHN-affiliated Hemophilia Treatment Centers. We hypothesized that use of EHL products were utilized in at least 30% of patients and would lead to decreased ABRs and improved joint health. To date 67 of a planned 135 subjects have been enrolled, constituting this interim analysis. Methods:Subjects were recruited from seven U.S. Hemophilia Treatment Centers. Subjects with severe hemophilia A or B ≤ 30 years of age on prophylaxis or demand therapy were eligible for enrollment. Subjects excluded from study were those with a recent joint bleed (within the last 2 weeks) or those unwilling to complete all elements of the study. Data were collected during a one-time encounter concurrent with an appointment for clinical evaluation, including demographic information, treatment regimen, product type, frequency, location and severity of all bleeds, Hemophilia Joint Health Scores (HJHS), and Quality of life (QoL). Bleeding rates in subjects receiving prophylaxis were compared with those receiving on demand therapy by type treatment, EHL vs standard half-life (SHL), and by hemophilia type. Severity of bleeding events (mild, moderate, or severe) and HJHS were compared by prophylaxis groups. Results: A total of 67 patients were enrolled and eligible for analysis. This included 58 subjects with severe hemophilia A, and 9 subjects with severe hemophilia B. The mean age of the cohort was 15 years (median 12 years, IQR 8 - 21 years). For these patients whose race information was known, 89.1% were Caucasian, 3.3% African-American, 3.3% Asian, and 4.7% were of mixed or 'other' race. Eleven out of 61 (18.0%) subjects with known ethnicity were Hispanic. Among 59 patients whose treatment type were available, the majority were on prophylaxis (n=53; 89.8%) as compared to on demand therapy (n=6; 10.2%). The average annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 2.8 amongst all individuals. As expected, the ABR was substantially lower in those receiving prophylaxis (ABR=1.0) as compared to on demand therapy (ABR=18.6) (p<0.001). Additionally, HJHS in those receiving prophylaxis was lower (mean HJHS= 3.9), meaning less evidence of joint damage, than in those receiving demand therapy (mean HJHS= 8.8) (p=0.162). For patients with severe hemophilia A, the ABR was lower in those individuals receiving EHL (ABR= 0.5) versus SHL (ABR= 1.5), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.136). All subjects with severe hemophilia B enrolled to date receive EHL products (n=9) therefore no comparison of ABR could be made between EHL and SHL products; the ABR in this group was 0.9. In patients with severe hemophilia A, there was a higher HJHS for those receiving EHL (mean HJHS= 7.0) versus those receiving SHL (mean HJHS = 2.1) (p=0.053). For patients with severe hemophilia B, all of whom received EHL, the mean HJHS was lower than in the hemophilia A cohort (mean HJHS=1.2). Conclusions: We report real-world bleeding events and joint health in patients with severe hemophilia A and B utilizing EHL and SHL products across a wide U.S. geographic distribution. As anticipated, there is substantial bleed reduction with prophylaxis versus on demand therapy. In our severe hemophilia A cohort, the ABR for patients receiving EHL products was similar to ABRs reported in clinical trials, suggesting clinical trial data may be reflective of real world use. Patients with severe hemophilia A receiving EHL for prophylaxis had a lower ABR than those receiving SHL, although the early impact is not reflected in the HJHS score. Longer follow-up will be necessary to determine the impact of EHL on HJHS. Disclosures Malec: Bioverativ: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Bioverativ: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy. Jaffray:Octapharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kouides:UniQure: Other: DSMB; Octapharma: Research Funding. Sidonio:Octapharma: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other: Advisory Board; Shire: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Other: Advisory Board; Kedrion: Research Funding; Biomarin: Other: Advisory Board; Grifols: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Bioverativ: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Uniqure: Other: Advisory Board. Abshire:CSL: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Other: DSMB. White:Asklepios: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Shire: Other: Physician Leadership Group; Bayer: Other: GRAC; Bioverativ: Other: DSMB; Biomarin: Other: DSMB; Invitrox: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Pfizer: Equity Ownership. Ragni:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; SPARK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; MOGAM: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Dabigatran Etexilate or Warfarin in the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism in Western European Patients: A Pooled Analysis of RE-COVER® and RE-COVER II™

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4730-4730
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schellong ◽  
Henry Eriksson ◽  
Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽  
Martin Feuring ◽  
Stefan Hantel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Dabigatran Etexilate ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Primary Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Efficacy Outcome ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
Western European ◽  
Acute Venous Thromboembolism

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document