Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR.

BACKGROUND: The role of direct oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation after successful transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial comparing edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists in patients with prevalent or incident atrial fibrillation as the indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adverse events consisting of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. On the basis of a hierarchical testing plan, the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tested sequentially for noninferiority, with noninferiority of edoxaban established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.38. Superiority testing of edoxaban for efficacy would follow if noninferiority and superiority were established for major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1426 patients were enrolled (713 in each group). The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 47.5% of the patients were women. Almost all the patients had atrial fibrillation before TAVR. The rate of the composite primary efficacy outcome was 17.3 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 16.5 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.31; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). Rates of major bleeding were 9.7 per 100 person-years and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.91; P = 0.93 for noninferiority); the difference between groups was mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. Rates of death from any cause or stroke were 10.0 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 11.7 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mainly prevalent atrial fibrillation who underwent successful TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists as determined by a hazard ratio margin of 38% for a composite primary outcome of adverse clinical events. The incidence of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with vitamin K antagonists. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ENVISAGE-TAVI AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943785.).

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC)

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.(AU)