Systemic, noncerebral, arterial embolism in 21,105 patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to edoxaban or warfarin: results from the Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Study 48 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke and systemic embolism. Trials comparing warfarin with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have demonstrated that, when compared with warfarin, the NOACs are at least as effective in preventing stroke, although detailed analyses characterizing systemic embolic events (SEEs) are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prespecified analysis in 21,105 patients with AF enrolled in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, which compared 2 once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and SEE. Of 1,016 patients who met the primary end point, 67 (6.6%) experienced an SEE of which 13% were fatal. Of 73 total SEEs (including recurrent events), 85% involved the extremities, and 41% required a surgical or percutaneous intervention. There were 23 (0.12%/year) SEEs with warfarin versus 15 with higher dose edoxaban (0.08%/year; hazard ratio vs warfarin 0.65; 95% CI 0.34-1.24; P = .19) and 29 with lower dose edoxaban (0.15%/year; hazard ratio vs warfarin 1.24; 95% CI 0.72-2.15; P = .43). In a meta-analysis of 4 warfarin-controlled phase 3 AF trials, NOACs significantly reduced the risk of SEE by 37% (relative risk 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.91; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Although considerably less frequent than stroke, systemic embolism is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in patients with AF. Although the overall number of events was too small to show a significant difference in the risk of SEE between edoxaban and warfarin, a meta-analysis of all the NOAC trials demonstrates that NOACs significantly reduce the risk of SEE compared with warfarin.

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.).

Effect of ACAT inhibition on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The enzyme acyl-coenzyme A:cholesterol acyltransferase (ACAT) esterifies cholesterol in a variety of tissues. In some animal models, ACAT inhibitors have antiatherosclerotic effects. METHODS: We performed intravascular ultrasonography in 408 patients with angiographically documented coronary disease. All patients received usual care for secondary prevention, including statins, if indicated. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the ACAT inhibitor pactimibe (100 mg per day) or matching placebo. Ultrasonography was repeated after 18 months to measure the progression of atherosclerosis. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable analyzing the progression of atherosclerosis--the change in percent atheroma volume--was similar in the pactimibe and placebo groups (0.69 percent and 0.59 percent, respectively; P=0.77). However, both secondary efficacy variables assessed by means of intravascular ultrasonography showed unfavorable effects of pactimibe treatment. As compared with baseline values, the normalized total atheroma volume showed significant regression in the placebo group (-5.6 mm3, P=0.001) but not in the pactimibe group (-1.3 mm3, P=0.39; P=0.03 for the comparison between groups). The atheroma volume in the most diseased 10-mm subsegment regressed by 3.2 mm3 in the placebo group, as compared with a decrease of 1.3 mm3 in the pactimibe group (P=0.01). The combined incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes was similar in the two groups (P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with coronary disease, treatment with an ACAT inhibitor did not improve the primary efficacy variable (percent atheroma volume) and adversely affected two major secondary efficacy measures assessed by intravascular ultrasonography. ACAT inhibition is not an effective strategy for limiting atherosclerosis and may promote atherogenesis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268515.).

Vasopeptidase inhibition with omapatrilat in chronic heart failure: acute and long-term hemodynamic and neurohumoral effects.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the acute and long-term hemodynamic and neurohumoral effects of the vasopeptidase inhibitor omapatrilat in human heart failure. BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition constitutes a major advance in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). Simultaneous inhibition of both neutral endopeptidase and ACE with omapatrilat may represent a new treatment strategy in CHF. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients with symptomatic heart failure were randomized to double-blind treatment with omapatrilat (first 190 patients: 2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg; last 179 patients: 2.5 mg, 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Acutely, the 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg doses of omapatrilat produced greater reductions in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and systemic vascular resistance compared with 2.5 mg. Higher doses were associated with greater increases in vasodilator and natriuretic peptides, in addition to ACE inhibition. After 12 weeks, omapatrilat 20 mg and 40 mg showed greater falls from baseline in PCWP (40 mg: 0 h to 12 h average change -7.3 +/- 0.8 mm Hg) and SBP (40 mg: -11.7 +/- 1.7 mm Hg) than 2.5 mg (both p < 0.01 vs. 2.5 mg). The incidence of adverse experiences and patient withdrawal were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In CHF, the acute hemodynamic benefit seen with higher doses of omapatrilat was associated with increases in plasma vasodilator and natriuretic peptide levels in addition to ACE inhibition. After 12 weeks, the hemodynamic benefit was maintained. Omapatrilat may be a promising new agent in CHF.