scholarly journals Lefamulin efficacy and safety in a pooled phase 3 clinical trial population with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and common clinical comorbidities

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. File ◽  
Elizabeth Alexander ◽  
Lisa Goldberg ◽  
Anita F. Das ◽  
Christian Sandrock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Chronic Lung Diseases ◽  
Elevated Liver Enzymes ◽  
Oral Switch ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Registration Date

Abstract Background Lefamulin, a first-in-class pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was noninferior to moxifloxacin in the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 intravenous-to-oral switch study and the LEAP 2 oral-only study. Using pooled LEAP 1/2 data, we examined lefamulin efficacy/safety overall and within subgroups of patients presenting with comorbidities typical in CABP management. Methods In LEAP 1, adults with CABP were randomized to receive intravenous lefamulin (150 mg every 12 h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch if predefined improvement criteria were met. In LEAP 2, adults with CABP were randomized to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 h) for 5 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days. Both studies assessed early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after first study drug dose and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test-of-cure (5‒10 days after last dose). Pooled analyses of the overall population used a 10% noninferiority margin. Results Lefamulin (n = 646) was noninferior to moxifloxacin (n = 643) for ECR (89.3% vs 90.5%, respectively; difference  − 1.1%; 95% CI  − 4.4 to 2.2); IACR success rates at test-of-cure were similarly high (≥ 85.0%). High efficacy with both lefamulin and moxifloxacin was also demonstrated across all well-represented patient subgroups, including those with advanced age, diabetes mellitus, a history of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmia) or chronic lung diseases (e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), elevated liver enzymes, or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions Lefamulin may provide a valuable intravenous/oral monotherapy alternative to fluoroquinolones or macrolides for empiric treatment of patients with CABP, including cases of patients at risk for poor outcomes due to age or various comorbidities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov LEAP 1 (NCT02559310; Registration Date: 24/09/2015) and LEAP 2 (NCT02813694; Registration Date: 27/06/2016).

scholarly journals A Phase-3 Study to Compare Delafloxacin to Moxifloxacin for the Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (DEFINE-CABP)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan P Horcajada ◽  
Robert A Salata ◽  
Rodolfo Álvarez-Sala ◽  
Floarea Mimi Nitu ◽  
Laura Lawrence ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
The United States ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Atypical Pathogens ◽  
Intent To Treat

Abstract Background The clinical and economic burden of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is significant and is anticipated to increase as the population ages and pathogens become more resistant. Delafloxacin is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Delafloxacin’s shape and charge profile uniquely impacts its spectrum of activity and side effect profile. This phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin to moxifloxacin for the treatment of CABP. Methods A randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, multicenter, global Phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin 300 mg BID or moxifloxacin 400 mg QD in adults with CABP. The primary endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) defined as improvement at 96 (± 24) hours after first dose of study drug. Clinical response at test of cure (TOC) and microbiologic response were also assessed. Results In the intent-to-treat analysis population (ITT), ECR rates were 88.9% in the delafloxacin group and 89.0% in the moxifloxacin group. Noninferiority of delafloxacin compared with moxifloxacin was demonstrated. At TOC in the ITT population, the success rates were similar between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events considered at least possibly related to the study drug occurred in 65 subjects (15.2%) in the delafloxacin group and 54 (12.6%) in the moxifloxacin group. Conclusions IV/oral delafloxacin monotherapy is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of adults with CABP, providing coverage for grampositive, gramnegative, and atypical pathogens.

scholarly journals 717. Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) in Patients With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP) at Risk for Poor Efficacy or Safety Outcomes: Pooled Subgroup Analyses From the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 Phase 3 Noninferiority Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S322-S323
Author(s):  
Jennifer Schranz ◽  
Lisa Goldberg ◽  
Anita F Das ◽  
Elizabeth Alexander ◽  
Gregory J Moran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Safety Concerns ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background In the United States, CABP is the second most common cause of hospitalization and a leading cause of infectious death. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma or diabetes are at risk for CABP and associated mortality. Similarly, patients with underlying cardiac or liver disease are at risk for potential cardiac or liver toxicities, respectively, associated with CABP antimicrobials, and patients aged ≥65 years are at risk for both efficacy/safety concerns. We report pooled efficacy/safety outcomes in at-risk subgroups from the LEAP 1 and 2 phase 3 trials. Methods In LEAP 1, patients with CABP (PORT III–V) received IV LEF 150 mg q12h for 5–7 days or MOX 400mg q24h for 7 days, with optional IV-to-oral switch (600 mg LEF q12h or 400 mg MOX q24h). In LEAP 2, patients with CABP (PORT II–IV) received oral LEF 600 mg q12h for 5 days or MOX 400 mg q24h for 7 days. Both studies assessed early clinical response (ECR; 96 ± 24 hours after first dose) in the intent-to-treat (ITT; all randomized patients) population (FDA primary endpoint) and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test-of-cure (TOC; 5–10 days after last dose) in the modified ITT (≥1 study drug dose) and clinically evaluable (met predefined evaluability criteria) populations (EMA coprimary endpoints). Pooled analyses used a 10% noninferiority margin. Safety was assessed in all randomized and treated patients. Results 1289 ITT patients were randomized to LEF (n = 646) or MOX (n = 643); of whom, 297 (23.0%) were aged 65–74 years and 220 (17.1%) were ≥75 years; 232 patients (18.0%) had COPD/asthma and 168 (13.0%) had diabetes mellitus (DM). At baseline, 501 patients (38.9%) had history of hypertension, 73 (5.7%) had history of arrhythmia, and 263 (20.4%) had transaminitis. The figure shows efficacy by age and in COPD/asthma and DM patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events, electrocardiogram assessments, and laboratory results in patients at risk for cardiac and hepatic safety concerns are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Conclusion In pooled analyses of LEAP 1 and 2, LEF efficacy was high and similar to MOX in patients at risk of efficacy concerns and LEF showed a safety profile similar to that of MOX in patients at risk of safety concerns. LEF is a promising new option for IV/oral monotherapy of CABP in patients at risk of poor outcomes due to CABP or to antimicrobial therapy for CABP. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals 2233. Efficacy and Symptom Resolution by Visit in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP) Treated With Lefamulin (LEF) or Moxifloxacin (MOX): Pooled Analysis of Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 Study Results

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S762-S763
Author(s):  
Jennifer Schranz ◽  
Anita F Das ◽  
Elizabeth Alexander ◽  
Gregory J Moran ◽  
Christian Sandrock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Symptom Resolution ◽  
Noninferiority Trials ◽  
Atypical Pathogens ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background Efficacy and safety of LEF were shown in 2 noninferiority trials (LEAP 1/2) vs. MOX in adults with CABP. We assessed the efficacy of LEF by visit based on a pooled analyses of LEAP 1/2 data. Methods In LEAP 1, PORT III–V patients (patients) received LEF 150 mg IV q12h for 5–7 days or MOX 400 mg IV q24h for 7 days, with optional IV-to-oral switch (600 mg LEF q12h or 400 mg MOX q24h). In LEAP 2, PORT II–IV patients received oral LEF 600 mg q12h for 5 days or oral MOX 400 mg q24h for 7 days. Criteria for defining the FDA primary endpoint of early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 hours after first dose were applied to each visit through late follow-up (LFU; days 27–34) in the intent-to-treat (ITT; all randomized patients) population. Investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) was examined at end of treatment (EOT; within 2 days after last dose), test-of-cure (TOC; 5–10 days after last dose; EMA primary endpoint), and LFU in the modified ITT (mITT; received ≥1 dose of study drug) and clinically evaluable (CE; met predefined evaluability criteria) populations. Results are presented by visit for pooled LEAP 1/2 data. Results 1289 ITT patients were randomized (LEF, n = 646; MOX, n = 643). Most patients in both groups achieved ECR at Day 3, with further increases through Day 7 and sustained efficacy through LFU (Fig 1). In mITT patients, IACR success rates at EOT/TOC/LFU were 87.1/85.0/83.2% with LEF and 88.1/87.1/86.1% with MOX; results were consistent in CE patients. The proportions of ITT patients with resolution of all baseline signs/symptoms of CABP increased similarly by visit in both treatment groups (Fig 2). Most patients did not achieve complete sign/symptom resolution until TOC, with fever generally being the first and cough the last to resolve. There was no apparent relationship between ECR and age, gender, renal status, SIRS, PORT, prior antibiotic use, baseline pathogens, typical/atypical pathogens, or mono/polymicrobial pathogens. The high percentage of patients at LFU with baseline symptom resolution suggests that symptom resolution was sustained. Conclusion In this pooled analysis, efficacy results were similar by visit in the LEF and MOX groups, with high ECR rates maintained through LFU. LEF will provide a potential new effective systemic monotherapy alternative to fluoroquinolones for the empiric treatment of CABP. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Omadacycline Versus Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia by Disease Severity: Results From the OPTIC Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Ramirez ◽  
Daniel H Deck ◽  
Paul B Eckburg ◽  
Marla Curran ◽  
Anita F Das ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Severity ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Risk Class ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Disease Characteristics

Abstract Background Severity/mortality risk scores and disease characteristics may assist in deciding whether patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) require outpatient treatment or hospitalization. The phase 3 OPTIC (Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community) study enrolled patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II–IV. Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to moxifloxacin in adults with CABP, at early clinical response (ECR) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE). We assessed efficacy of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in these patients based on disease severity. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) omadacycline (100 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses followed by 100 mg daily [q24h], with optional transition to omadacycline 300 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment) or moxifloxacin IV 400 mg q24h (with optional transition to 400 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment). Total treatment duration was 7–14 days. We compared rates of early clinical success (72–120 hours after first dose) and investigator-assessed clinical success at PTE (5–10 days after last dose) in subgroups based (1) on severity/mortality risk scores (PORT, CURB-65, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, modified ATS, SMART-COP) and (2) on presence of baseline radiographic characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, or bacteremia. Results Altogether, 774 patients (omadacycline, n = 386; moxifloxacin, n = 388) were randomized. Clinical success rates (ECR/PTE) were similar between treatment groups (across all subgroups). Efficacy across treatment groups was similar in patients with baseline radiographic characteristics or COPD/asthma, but moxifloxacin had higher clinical success rates in patients with bacteremia. Conclusions Efficacy of omadacycline was similar to that of moxifloxacin, regardless of disease severity/mortality risk and disease characteristics.

Clinical trials — the personal perspective of the research physician?

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-263
Author(s):  
Maria Y. Egorova ◽  
Irina A. Shuvalova ◽  
Olga I. Zvonareva ◽  
Igor D. Pimenov ◽  
Olga S. Kobyakova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Personal Perspective ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
To Receive

Background. The organization of clinical trials (CTs) requires the participation and coordination of healthcare providers, patients, public and private parties. Obstacles to the participation of any of these groups pose a risk of lowering the potential for the implementation of CTs. Researchers are a key human resource in conducting of CT. Their motivation for participation can have a significant impact on the recruitment and retention of patients, on the quality of the data collected, which determines the overall outcome of the study. Aims to assess the factors affecting the inclusion of Russian physicians-researchers in CT, and to determine their role in relations with patients-participants. Materials and methods. The study was organized as a part of the Russian multicenter face-to-face study. A survey was conducted of researchers from 10 cities of Russia (20172018). The participation in the survey for doctors was anonymous and voluntary. Results. The study involved 78 respondents. Most research doctors highly value the importance of research for science (4,84 0,39), society (4,67 0,46) and slightly lower for participating patients (4,44 0,61). The expectations of medical researchers are related to improving their financial situation and attaining new experience (n = 14; 18,18%). However, the opportunity to work with new technologies of treatment and diagnosis (n = 41; 52,56%) acted as a motivating factor. According to the questionnaire, the vast majority of research doctors (n = 29; 37,18%) believe that the main reason for patients to participate in CT is to receive quality and free medical care. The most significant obstacle to the inclusion of participants in CT was the side effects of the study drug (n = 38; 48,71%). Conclusions. The potential of clinical researchers in Russia is very high. The patient-participant acts for the research doctor as the subject of the study, and not the object, so the well-being of the patient is not indifferent to the doctor. However, the features of the functioning of our health care system form the motivation of doctors-researchers (additional earnings, professional self-development) and the way they perceive the motivation of patients (CT as an opportunity to receive quality medical care).

Interleukin-17A: A Potential Therapeutic Target in Chronic Lung Diseases

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 921-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadiya Bi Shaikh ◽  
Ashwini Prabhu ◽  
Yashodhar Prabhakar Bhandary
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Diseases ◽  
Inflammatory Cytokine ◽  
Inflammatory Responses ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Interleukin 17 ◽  
Potential Therapeutic Target ◽  
Chronic Respiratory Diseases ◽  
Chronic Lung Diseases ◽  
Interleukin 17A ◽  
Insight Into

Background: Interleukin-17A (IL-17A) is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that has gained a lot of attention because of its involvement in respiratory diseases. Interleukin-17 cytokine family includes six members, out of which, IL-17A participates towards the immune responses in allergy and inflammation. It also modulates the progression of respiratory disorders. Objective: The present review is an insight into the involvement and contributions of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-17A in chronic respiratory diseases like Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Distress (COPD), asthma, pneumonia, obliterative bronchiolitis, lung cancer and many others. Conclusion: IL-17A is a major regulator of inflammatory responses. In all the mentioned diseases, IL- 17A plays a prime role in inducing the diseases, whereas the lack of this pro-inflammatory cytokine reduces the severity of respective respiratory diseases. Thereby, this review suggests IL-17A as an instrumental target in chronic respiratory diseases.

scholarly journals A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Martin Croce ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez Gonzalez ◽  
Satoshi Fujimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Methods In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, –1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, –7.6%; 97.5% CI: –15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. Conclusions Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02019420.

scholarly journals Persistent Misperceptions about Nicotine among US Physicians: Results from a Randomized Survey Experiment

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 7713
Author(s):  
Michelle T. Bover Manderski ◽  
Michael B. Steinberg ◽  
Olivia A. Wackowski ◽  
Binu Singh ◽  
William J. Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Effects ◽  
Birth Defects ◽  
Prevalence Ratio ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Question Wording ◽  
Demographic Correlates ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
To Receive

We conducted a survey experiment among US physicians to evaluate whether question wording impacted perceptions about the health effects of nicotine. 926 physicians were randomized to receive one of two versions of a question matrix that asked about the “extent to which they agree or disagree that ‘nicotine’ (Version 1) or ‘nicotine, on its own,’ (Version 2) directly contributes to” birth defects, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated whether question condition predicted strong agreement and/or agreement with each statement, and assessed demographic correlates of each outcome while adjusting for question version. Physicians who received Version 2 were less likely to “strongly agree” that nicotine directly caused birth defects (Prevalence Ratio (PR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.98), CVD (PR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84–0.95), cancer (PR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75–0.87), and COPD (PR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72–0.84). Females were more likely to “strongly agree” that nicotine directly contributes to birth defects and cancer, and family physicians were most likely to “strongly agree” that nicotine directly contributes to CVD, cancer, and COPD. Question wording is important when measuring physicians’ beliefs about nicotine; however, even after accounting for question version, misperceptions about the direct health effects of nicotine were common and varied by sex and specialty.

scholarly journals Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: NHLBI Workshop on the Primary Prevention of Chronic Lung Diseases

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (Supplement 3) ◽  
pp. S154-S160 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Bradley Drummond ◽  
A. Sonia Buist ◽  
James D. Crapo ◽  
Robert A. Wise ◽  
Stephen I. Rennard
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Lung Diseases ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Chronic Lung Diseases

The comparative effectiveness of direct oral anti-coagulants and low molecular weight heparins for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in cancer: The CANVAS pragmatic randomized trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12020-12020
Author(s):  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Hajime Uno ◽  
Rachel Pam Greenerger Rosovsky ◽  
Cynthia Rutherford ◽  
Kristen Marie Sanfilippo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Pragmatic Trial ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
The Difference ◽  
To Receive

12020 Background: Previous randomized trials in cancer patients suggest that DOACs are non-inferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE but have higher risk of bleeding. However, the balance of benefits and burdens remains uncertain. Objective: The CANVAS pragmatic trial compared recurrent VTE, bleeding and death in cancer patients following an initial VTE treated with either DOAC or LMWH therapy. Methods: CANVAS was an unblinded hybrid comparative effectiveness non-inferiority trial, with randomized and preference cohorts. Between 12/16 and 4/20, 671 participants were randomized and followed for 6-months. Between 12/16 and 12/17, 140 participants declined randomization, chose their preferred anticoagulant and were followed for 6-months. The preference cohort was closed when predetermined stopping criteria were met. Final follow-up was 11/30/20. Randomized patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either a DOAC or a LMWH. If assigned to LMWH, transitions to warfarin were allowed. Physicians and patients could choose among any DOAC or LMWH. Doses were suggested based on FDA-approved labeling but not mandated. Patients from 67 practices in the US with any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma or CLL and a diagnosis of symptomatic or radiographically detected VTE within 30 days of enrollment were eligible. The 1° analysis was conducted in the randomized modified-into to treat popululation, (all subjects who received study drug). The 1° outcome was recurrent VTE. The aim was to establish noninferiority of anticoagulation with a DOAC as defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in the event rate at 6 months of < 3%. Secondary outcomes included death and bleeding. Hypothesis testing included only the randomized cohort but propensity score adjusted results for the preference and combined cohorts are also shown. Results: The non-inferiority criteria for recurrent VTE was met. Conclusions: Among adult cancer patients with VTE, the use of a DOAC compared with a LMWH resulted in a noninferior risk of recurrent VTE with no differences in rates of bleeding or death in randomized patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02744092. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document