Thrombosis

Universitair Medisch Centrum

Immediate compression therapy provides a “clear benefit” for patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to the senior author of a study published in Blood.

In this prospective study, patients who started compression therapy within the first 24 hours of DVT diagnosis were 20% less likely to develop residual vein occlusion (RVO) than patients who did not start compression therapy in the acute phase.

Furthermore, patients who did not develop RVO were 8% less likely to have post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) than patients with RVO.

“We found little reason for those treating DVT not to use compression therapy as a prevention measure against future complications,” said study author Arina J. ten Cate-Hoek, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

“Although the use of compression stockings after DVT is routine across much of Europe, it is less common in the United States, where guidelines emphasize compression primarily for patients who complain of ongoing symptoms.”

Dr. ten Cate-Hoek and her colleagues studied 592 adults with DVT who were treated in 10 centers across the Netherlands.

All patients were treated with anticoagulants, largely vitamin K antagonists (80.6%) but also direct oral anticoagulants (3.0%), investigational anticoagulants (11.1%), and low-molecular-weight heparin (4.4%).

Within 24 hours of DVT diagnosis, most patients received compression therapy (pressure 35 mmHg) with either multilayer compression bandaging (62.3%) or compression hosiery (25.5%). A minority of patients did not receive compression in the acute phase (12.2%).

The average time from DVT diagnosis to RVO assessment was 5.3 months.

The incidence of RVO was significantly lower in patients who received immediate compression than in those who did not—46.3% and 66.7%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P=0.005).

In addition, PTS was more common among patients with RVO.

At 6 months, the incidence of PTS was 55.7% among patients with RVO and 44.3% among patients without RVO (OR, 0.66; P=0.029). At 24 months, the incidence of PTS was 54.0% and 46.0%, respectively (OR, 0.65; P=0.013).

The researchers said there was no significant association between RVO and recurrent DVT or pulmonary embolism.

Among the 30 patients with DVT recurrence, 60% had RVO and 40% did not (OR, 0.82; P=0.263).

Among the 19 patients who had recurrent pulmonary embolism, 52.6% had RVO and 47.7% did not (OR, 0.95; P=0.805).

Dr. ten Cate-Hoek noted that compression therapy is thought to improve blood flow by reducing the diameter of veins so that blood is pushed through them more forcefully, which helps to clear clot material.

“I think we can infer from our findings that this improved blood flow certainly helps prevent complications like residual vein occlusion and post-thrombotic syndrome after DVT,” she said.

“Given these outcomes, and that compression stockings are fairly easy to self-administer, relatively inexpensive, and minimally intrusive, compression therapy offers a clear benefit for all patients with DVT.”

Universitair Medisch Centrum

Immediate compression therapy provides a “clear benefit” for patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to the senior author of a study published in Blood.

In this prospective study, patients who started compression therapy within the first 24 hours of DVT diagnosis were 20% less likely to develop residual vein occlusion (RVO) than patients who did not start compression therapy in the acute phase.

Furthermore, patients who did not develop RVO were 8% less likely to have post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) than patients with RVO.

“We found little reason for those treating DVT not to use compression therapy as a prevention measure against future complications,” said study author Arina J. ten Cate-Hoek, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

“Although the use of compression stockings after DVT is routine across much of Europe, it is less common in the United States, where guidelines emphasize compression primarily for patients who complain of ongoing symptoms.”

Dr. ten Cate-Hoek and her colleagues studied 592 adults with DVT who were treated in 10 centers across the Netherlands.

All patients were treated with anticoagulants, largely vitamin K antagonists (80.6%) but also direct oral anticoagulants (3.0%), investigational anticoagulants (11.1%), and low-molecular-weight heparin (4.4%).

Within 24 hours of DVT diagnosis, most patients received compression therapy (pressure 35 mmHg) with either multilayer compression bandaging (62.3%) or compression hosiery (25.5%). A minority of patients did not receive compression in the acute phase (12.2%).

The average time from DVT diagnosis to RVO assessment was 5.3 months.

The incidence of RVO was significantly lower in patients who received immediate compression than in those who did not—46.3% and 66.7%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P=0.005).

In addition, PTS was more common among patients with RVO.

At 6 months, the incidence of PTS was 55.7% among patients with RVO and 44.3% among patients without RVO (OR, 0.66; P=0.029). At 24 months, the incidence of PTS was 54.0% and 46.0%, respectively (OR, 0.65; P=0.013).

The researchers said there was no significant association between RVO and recurrent DVT or pulmonary embolism.

Among the 30 patients with DVT recurrence, 60% had RVO and 40% did not (OR, 0.82; P=0.263).

Among the 19 patients who had recurrent pulmonary embolism, 52.6% had RVO and 47.7% did not (OR, 0.95; P=0.805).

Dr. ten Cate-Hoek noted that compression therapy is thought to improve blood flow by reducing the diameter of veins so that blood is pushed through them more forcefully, which helps to clear clot material.

“I think we can infer from our findings that this improved blood flow certainly helps prevent complications like residual vein occlusion and post-thrombotic syndrome after DVT,” she said.

“Given these outcomes, and that compression stockings are fairly easy to self-administer, relatively inexpensive, and minimally intrusive, compression therapy offers a clear benefit for all patients with DVT.”

Universitair Medisch Centrum

Immediate compression therapy provides a “clear benefit” for patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to the senior author of a study published in Blood.

In this prospective study, patients who started compression therapy within the first 24 hours of DVT diagnosis were 20% less likely to develop residual vein occlusion (RVO) than patients who did not start compression therapy in the acute phase.

Furthermore, patients who did not develop RVO were 8% less likely to have post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) than patients with RVO.

“We found little reason for those treating DVT not to use compression therapy as a prevention measure against future complications,” said study author Arina J. ten Cate-Hoek, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

“Although the use of compression stockings after DVT is routine across much of Europe, it is less common in the United States, where guidelines emphasize compression primarily for patients who complain of ongoing symptoms.”

Dr. ten Cate-Hoek and her colleagues studied 592 adults with DVT who were treated in 10 centers across the Netherlands.

All patients were treated with anticoagulants, largely vitamin K antagonists (80.6%) but also direct oral anticoagulants (3.0%), investigational anticoagulants (11.1%), and low-molecular-weight heparin (4.4%).

Within 24 hours of DVT diagnosis, most patients received compression therapy (pressure 35 mmHg) with either multilayer compression bandaging (62.3%) or compression hosiery (25.5%). A minority of patients did not receive compression in the acute phase (12.2%).

The average time from DVT diagnosis to RVO assessment was 5.3 months.

The incidence of RVO was significantly lower in patients who received immediate compression than in those who did not—46.3% and 66.7%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P=0.005).

In addition, PTS was more common among patients with RVO.

At 6 months, the incidence of PTS was 55.7% among patients with RVO and 44.3% among patients without RVO (OR, 0.66; P=0.029). At 24 months, the incidence of PTS was 54.0% and 46.0%, respectively (OR, 0.65; P=0.013).

The researchers said there was no significant association between RVO and recurrent DVT or pulmonary embolism.

Among the 30 patients with DVT recurrence, 60% had RVO and 40% did not (OR, 0.82; P=0.263).

Among the 19 patients who had recurrent pulmonary embolism, 52.6% had RVO and 47.7% did not (OR, 0.95; P=0.805).

Dr. ten Cate-Hoek noted that compression therapy is thought to improve blood flow by reducing the diameter of veins so that blood is pushed through them more forcefully, which helps to clear clot material.

“I think we can infer from our findings that this improved blood flow certainly helps prevent complications like residual vein occlusion and post-thrombotic syndrome after DVT,” she said.

“Given these outcomes, and that compression stockings are fairly easy to self-administer, relatively inexpensive, and minimally intrusive, compression therapy offers a clear benefit for all patients with DVT.”

Synthetic cannabinoids laced with superwarfarin were behind a recent outbreak of severe coagulopathy in Illinois.

In most cases, vitamin K replacement therapy alleviated symptoms, but four patients died after developing intracranial bleeding, said Amar H. Kelkar, MD, of the University of Illinois at Peoria.

Experts continue to look for how and why superwarfarin ended up in synthetic cannabinoids, whose street names include spice and K2, wrote Dr. Kelkar and his associates. Their report is in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Starting in March 2018, more than 150 patients across Illinois presented to hospitals with bleeding diathesis that involved persistent coagulopathy, the investigators explained. Early inquiries revealed that patients had consumed synthetic cannabinoids. Serum tests identified vitamin K antagonists, including brodifacoum, bromadiolone, and difenacoum. During arrests of suspected distributors, police confiscated synthetic cannabinoids that also tested positive for brodifacoum.

To help characterize the outbreak, the investigators reviewed admissions to Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Ill., between March 28 and April 21, 2018. They identified 34 cases in which patients with vitamin K–dependent factor coagulopathy reported recent exposure to synthetic cannabinoids.

Fifteen of these patients underwent confirmatory anticoagulant testing, which universally confirmed superwarfarin poisoning. Brodifacoum was detected in all patients, difenacoum in five patients, bromadiolone in two patients, and warfarin in one patient.

Common presenting symptoms included gross hematuria (56% of patients) and abdominal pain (47%). Computed tomography identified renal abnormalities in 12 patients.

All patients received oral vitamin K₁ (phytonadione). Red cell transfusions, fresh-frozen plasma infusions, and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate, or a combination of these treatments, were also used in some patients.

Among the four confirmed deaths in this outbreak, one occurred in a patient in this case series. The patient, a 37-year-old woman presenting to the emergency department with markedly reduced consciousness, was reported by her friends to have recently used synthetic cannabinoids and methamphetamine. She had no personal or family history of coagulopathy.

Computed tomography of the head without contrast material revealed severe acute intraparenchymal hemorrhage of the right basal nuclei and insula with intraventricular extension, a 10-mm left-sided midline shift, and herniation.

She met criteria for brain death 15 hours after hospital admission despite treatment with 10 mg of intravenous vitamin K₁, four units of fresh frozen plasma, and 2,300 units of Kcentra.

Treating these patients after hospital discharge was difficult because of a lack of consensus guidelines and access to follow-up care, Dr. Kelkar and his associates noted. Some patients were quoted $24,000 to $34,000 per month for oral vitamin K1 therapy, which also made caring for them difficult and highlighted the need for confirmatory laboratory testing of suspected cases of superwarfarin poisoning.

Dr. Kelkar reported having no conflicts of interest. Two coinvestigators reported relationships outside the submitted work with Shire, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kelkar AH et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1216-23.

Synthetic cannabinoids laced with superwarfarin were behind a recent outbreak of severe coagulopathy in Illinois.

In most cases, vitamin K replacement therapy alleviated symptoms, but four patients died after developing intracranial bleeding, said Amar H. Kelkar, MD, of the University of Illinois at Peoria.

Experts continue to look for how and why superwarfarin ended up in synthetic cannabinoids, whose street names include spice and K2, wrote Dr. Kelkar and his associates. Their report is in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Starting in March 2018, more than 150 patients across Illinois presented to hospitals with bleeding diathesis that involved persistent coagulopathy, the investigators explained. Early inquiries revealed that patients had consumed synthetic cannabinoids. Serum tests identified vitamin K antagonists, including brodifacoum, bromadiolone, and difenacoum. During arrests of suspected distributors, police confiscated synthetic cannabinoids that also tested positive for brodifacoum.

To help characterize the outbreak, the investigators reviewed admissions to Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Ill., between March 28 and April 21, 2018. They identified 34 cases in which patients with vitamin K–dependent factor coagulopathy reported recent exposure to synthetic cannabinoids.

Fifteen of these patients underwent confirmatory anticoagulant testing, which universally confirmed superwarfarin poisoning. Brodifacoum was detected in all patients, difenacoum in five patients, bromadiolone in two patients, and warfarin in one patient.

Common presenting symptoms included gross hematuria (56% of patients) and abdominal pain (47%). Computed tomography identified renal abnormalities in 12 patients.

All patients received oral vitamin K₁ (phytonadione). Red cell transfusions, fresh-frozen plasma infusions, and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate, or a combination of these treatments, were also used in some patients.

Among the four confirmed deaths in this outbreak, one occurred in a patient in this case series. The patient, a 37-year-old woman presenting to the emergency department with markedly reduced consciousness, was reported by her friends to have recently used synthetic cannabinoids and methamphetamine. She had no personal or family history of coagulopathy.

Computed tomography of the head without contrast material revealed severe acute intraparenchymal hemorrhage of the right basal nuclei and insula with intraventricular extension, a 10-mm left-sided midline shift, and herniation.

She met criteria for brain death 15 hours after hospital admission despite treatment with 10 mg of intravenous vitamin K₁, four units of fresh frozen plasma, and 2,300 units of Kcentra.

Treating these patients after hospital discharge was difficult because of a lack of consensus guidelines and access to follow-up care, Dr. Kelkar and his associates noted. Some patients were quoted $24,000 to $34,000 per month for oral vitamin K1 therapy, which also made caring for them difficult and highlighted the need for confirmatory laboratory testing of suspected cases of superwarfarin poisoning.

Dr. Kelkar reported having no conflicts of interest. Two coinvestigators reported relationships outside the submitted work with Shire, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kelkar AH et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1216-23.

Synthetic cannabinoids laced with superwarfarin were behind a recent outbreak of severe coagulopathy in Illinois.

In most cases, vitamin K replacement therapy alleviated symptoms, but four patients died after developing intracranial bleeding, said Amar H. Kelkar, MD, of the University of Illinois at Peoria.

Experts continue to look for how and why superwarfarin ended up in synthetic cannabinoids, whose street names include spice and K2, wrote Dr. Kelkar and his associates. Their report is in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Starting in March 2018, more than 150 patients across Illinois presented to hospitals with bleeding diathesis that involved persistent coagulopathy, the investigators explained. Early inquiries revealed that patients had consumed synthetic cannabinoids. Serum tests identified vitamin K antagonists, including brodifacoum, bromadiolone, and difenacoum. During arrests of suspected distributors, police confiscated synthetic cannabinoids that also tested positive for brodifacoum.

To help characterize the outbreak, the investigators reviewed admissions to Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Ill., between March 28 and April 21, 2018. They identified 34 cases in which patients with vitamin K–dependent factor coagulopathy reported recent exposure to synthetic cannabinoids.

Fifteen of these patients underwent confirmatory anticoagulant testing, which universally confirmed superwarfarin poisoning. Brodifacoum was detected in all patients, difenacoum in five patients, bromadiolone in two patients, and warfarin in one patient.

Common presenting symptoms included gross hematuria (56% of patients) and abdominal pain (47%). Computed tomography identified renal abnormalities in 12 patients.

All patients received oral vitamin K₁ (phytonadione). Red cell transfusions, fresh-frozen plasma infusions, and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate, or a combination of these treatments, were also used in some patients.

Among the four confirmed deaths in this outbreak, one occurred in a patient in this case series. The patient, a 37-year-old woman presenting to the emergency department with markedly reduced consciousness, was reported by her friends to have recently used synthetic cannabinoids and methamphetamine. She had no personal or family history of coagulopathy.

Computed tomography of the head without contrast material revealed severe acute intraparenchymal hemorrhage of the right basal nuclei and insula with intraventricular extension, a 10-mm left-sided midline shift, and herniation.

She met criteria for brain death 15 hours after hospital admission despite treatment with 10 mg of intravenous vitamin K₁, four units of fresh frozen plasma, and 2,300 units of Kcentra.

Treating these patients after hospital discharge was difficult because of a lack of consensus guidelines and access to follow-up care, Dr. Kelkar and his associates noted. Some patients were quoted $24,000 to $34,000 per month for oral vitamin K1 therapy, which also made caring for them difficult and highlighted the need for confirmatory laboratory testing of suspected cases of superwarfarin poisoning.

Dr. Kelkar reported having no conflicts of interest. Two coinvestigators reported relationships outside the submitted work with Shire, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kelkar AH et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1216-23.

Anticoagulation thresholds based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk score varied from population to population, researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

After accounting for differing rates of stroke in published studies, the benefit of warfarin anticoagulation varied nearly fourfold, said Sachin J. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco and his associates. They called for guidelines that “better reflect the uncertainty in current thresholds of stroke risk score for recommending anticoagulation.”

Oral anticoagulation markedly reduces risk of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage, which often is fatal. Therefore, when deciding whether to recommend oral anticoagulation, physicians must estimate clinical net benefit by quantifying the difference between reduction in stroke risk and increase in major bleeding risk, weighted by the severity of each outcome.

Guidelines on nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from the European Society of Cardiology and joint guidelines from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) recommend oral anticoagulation when CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, and vascular disease) risk score is 2 or greater. These guidelines implicitly assume that a particular CHA₂DS₂-VASc score denotes the same amount of risk across populations, even though a recent meta-analysis found otherwise, as the researchers noted.

To further test this assumption, they applied an existing Markov model to data from more than 33,000 members of the ATRIA-CVRN cohort. All patients had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and were diagnosed during 1996-1997. About 81% had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2. For each patient, the researchers produced four estimates of the net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation based on ischemic stroke rates from ATRIA, the Swedish AF cohort study, the SPORTIF study, and the Danish National Patient Registry.

Optimal anticoagulation thresholds were a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 3 or more using stroke rates from ATRIA, 2 or more based on Swedish AF rates, 1 or more based on SPORTIF rates, and 0 or more using rates from the Danish National Patient Registry. Oral anticoagulation thresholds were lower but still varied widely after accounting for the lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage associated with non–vitamin K antagonist therapy.

Therefore, current guidelines based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score may need revising “in favor of more accurate, individualized assessments of risk for both ischemic stroke and major bleeding,” the investigators wrote. “Until such time, guidelines should better reflect the uncertainty of the current approach in which a patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is used as the primary basis for recommending oral anticoagulation.”

The study had no primary funding source. Dr. Shah reported having no conflicts of interest. Three coinvestigators disclosed research support from relevant pharmaceutical or device companies.

SOURCE: Shah SJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Sep 25. doi: 10.7326/M17-2762  

Anticoagulation thresholds based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk score varied from population to population, researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

After accounting for differing rates of stroke in published studies, the benefit of warfarin anticoagulation varied nearly fourfold, said Sachin J. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco and his associates. They called for guidelines that “better reflect the uncertainty in current thresholds of stroke risk score for recommending anticoagulation.”

Oral anticoagulation markedly reduces risk of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage, which often is fatal. Therefore, when deciding whether to recommend oral anticoagulation, physicians must estimate clinical net benefit by quantifying the difference between reduction in stroke risk and increase in major bleeding risk, weighted by the severity of each outcome.

Guidelines on nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from the European Society of Cardiology and joint guidelines from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) recommend oral anticoagulation when CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, and vascular disease) risk score is 2 or greater. These guidelines implicitly assume that a particular CHA₂DS₂-VASc score denotes the same amount of risk across populations, even though a recent meta-analysis found otherwise, as the researchers noted.

To further test this assumption, they applied an existing Markov model to data from more than 33,000 members of the ATRIA-CVRN cohort. All patients had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and were diagnosed during 1996-1997. About 81% had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2. For each patient, the researchers produced four estimates of the net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation based on ischemic stroke rates from ATRIA, the Swedish AF cohort study, the SPORTIF study, and the Danish National Patient Registry.

Optimal anticoagulation thresholds were a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 3 or more using stroke rates from ATRIA, 2 or more based on Swedish AF rates, 1 or more based on SPORTIF rates, and 0 or more using rates from the Danish National Patient Registry. Oral anticoagulation thresholds were lower but still varied widely after accounting for the lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage associated with non–vitamin K antagonist therapy.

Therefore, current guidelines based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score may need revising “in favor of more accurate, individualized assessments of risk for both ischemic stroke and major bleeding,” the investigators wrote. “Until such time, guidelines should better reflect the uncertainty of the current approach in which a patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is used as the primary basis for recommending oral anticoagulation.”

The study had no primary funding source. Dr. Shah reported having no conflicts of interest. Three coinvestigators disclosed research support from relevant pharmaceutical or device companies.

SOURCE: Shah SJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Sep 25. doi: 10.7326/M17-2762  

Anticoagulation thresholds based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk score varied from population to population, researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

After accounting for differing rates of stroke in published studies, the benefit of warfarin anticoagulation varied nearly fourfold, said Sachin J. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco and his associates. They called for guidelines that “better reflect the uncertainty in current thresholds of stroke risk score for recommending anticoagulation.”

Oral anticoagulation markedly reduces risk of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage, which often is fatal. Therefore, when deciding whether to recommend oral anticoagulation, physicians must estimate clinical net benefit by quantifying the difference between reduction in stroke risk and increase in major bleeding risk, weighted by the severity of each outcome.

Guidelines on nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from the European Society of Cardiology and joint guidelines from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) recommend oral anticoagulation when CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, and vascular disease) risk score is 2 or greater. These guidelines implicitly assume that a particular CHA₂DS₂-VASc score denotes the same amount of risk across populations, even though a recent meta-analysis found otherwise, as the researchers noted.

To further test this assumption, they applied an existing Markov model to data from more than 33,000 members of the ATRIA-CVRN cohort. All patients had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and were diagnosed during 1996-1997. About 81% had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2. For each patient, the researchers produced four estimates of the net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation based on ischemic stroke rates from ATRIA, the Swedish AF cohort study, the SPORTIF study, and the Danish National Patient Registry.

Optimal anticoagulation thresholds were a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 3 or more using stroke rates from ATRIA, 2 or more based on Swedish AF rates, 1 or more based on SPORTIF rates, and 0 or more using rates from the Danish National Patient Registry. Oral anticoagulation thresholds were lower but still varied widely after accounting for the lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage associated with non–vitamin K antagonist therapy.

Therefore, current guidelines based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score may need revising “in favor of more accurate, individualized assessments of risk for both ischemic stroke and major bleeding,” the investigators wrote. “Until such time, guidelines should better reflect the uncertainty of the current approach in which a patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is used as the primary basis for recommending oral anticoagulation.”

The study had no primary funding source. Dr. Shah reported having no conflicts of interest. Three coinvestigators disclosed research support from relevant pharmaceutical or device companies.

SOURCE: Shah SJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Sep 25. doi: 10.7326/M17-2762  

Photo from Bayer

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has approved Jivi® (also known as damoctocog alfa pegol or antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027) is a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate approved for use in hemophilia A patients age 12 and older.

Jivi is approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

As prophylaxis, Jivi is typically given twice weekly, but it can also be given every 5 days or once a week, depending on patient needs.

The approval of Jivi in Japan is supported by data from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Jivi provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has approved Jivi® (also known as damoctocog alfa pegol or antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027) is a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate approved for use in hemophilia A patients age 12 and older.

Jivi is approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

As prophylaxis, Jivi is typically given twice weekly, but it can also be given every 5 days or once a week, depending on patient needs.

The approval of Jivi in Japan is supported by data from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Jivi provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has approved Jivi® (also known as damoctocog alfa pegol or antihemophilic factor [recombinant] PEGylated-aucl) for the treatment of hemophilia A.

Jivi (formerly BAY94-9027) is a DNA-derived, factor VIII concentrate approved for use in hemophilia A patients age 12 and older.

Jivi is approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes, for perioperative management of bleeding, and as routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

As prophylaxis, Jivi is typically given twice weekly, but it can also be given every 5 days or once a week, depending on patient needs.

The approval of Jivi in Japan is supported by data from the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for Jivi used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated Jivi for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received Jivi for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Jivi provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for damoctocog alfa pegol, a recombinant human factor VIII therapy.

Bayer is seeking European marketing authorization for damoctocog alfa pegol (formerly BAY94-9027) for the treatment and prophylaxis of bleeding in previously treated patients age 12 and older with hemophilia A.

The CHMP’s recommendation for damoctocog alfa pegol, which is approved in the U.S. under the name Jivi, will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

The EC typically makes a decision about marketing authorization within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion. The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The CHMP’s recommendation for damoctocog alfa pegol is supported by the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for damoctocog alfa pegol used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated damoctocog alfa pegol for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received damoctocog alfa pegol for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Damoctocog alfa pegol provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for damoctocog alfa pegol, a recombinant human factor VIII therapy.

Bayer is seeking European marketing authorization for damoctocog alfa pegol (formerly BAY94-9027) for the treatment and prophylaxis of bleeding in previously treated patients age 12 and older with hemophilia A.

The CHMP’s recommendation for damoctocog alfa pegol, which is approved in the U.S. under the name Jivi, will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

The EC typically makes a decision about marketing authorization within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion. The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The CHMP’s recommendation for damoctocog alfa pegol is supported by the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for damoctocog alfa pegol used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated damoctocog alfa pegol for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received damoctocog alfa pegol for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Damoctocog alfa pegol provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for damoctocog alfa pegol, a recombinant human factor VIII therapy.

Bayer is seeking European marketing authorization for damoctocog alfa pegol (formerly BAY94-9027) for the treatment and prophylaxis of bleeding in previously treated patients age 12 and older with hemophilia A.

The CHMP’s recommendation for damoctocog alfa pegol, which is approved in the U.S. under the name Jivi, will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).

The EC typically makes a decision about marketing authorization within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion. The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The CHMP’s recommendation for damoctocog alfa pegol is supported by the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial. Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for damoctocog alfa pegol used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated damoctocog alfa pegol for perioperative management.

Efficacy

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received damoctocog alfa pegol for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were considered “moderate,” and 3.3% were considered “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A. Damoctocog alfa pegol provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.

Susan London/MDedge News

Parsing the findings

When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”

“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”

Susan London/MDedge News

Susan London/MDedge News

Trial details

On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.

Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).

Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”

In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.

SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.

Susan London/MDedge News

Parsing the findings

When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”

“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”

Susan London/MDedge News

Susan London/MDedge News

Trial details

On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.

Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).

Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”

In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.

SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.

Susan London/MDedge News

Parsing the findings

When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”

“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”

Susan London/MDedge News

Susan London/MDedge News

Trial details

On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.

Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).

Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”

In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.

SAN DIEGO – In the first randomized, head-to-head trial of drug-releasing stents for above-the-knee femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD), Boston Scientific’s polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent outperformed Cook Medical’s polymer-free, paclitaxel-coated stent.

M. Alexander Otto

M. Alexander Otto

M. Alexander Otto

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – In the first randomized, head-to-head trial of drug-releasing stents for above-the-knee femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD), Boston Scientific’s polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent outperformed Cook Medical’s polymer-free, paclitaxel-coated stent.

M. Alexander Otto

M. Alexander Otto

M. Alexander Otto

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – In the first randomized, head-to-head trial of drug-releasing stents for above-the-knee femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD), Boston Scientific’s polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent outperformed Cook Medical’s polymer-free, paclitaxel-coated stent.

M. Alexander Otto

M. Alexander Otto

M. Alexander Otto

[email protected]

MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).

This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.

This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.

Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.

[email protected]

MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).

This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.

This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.

Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.

[email protected]

MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).

This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.

This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.

Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.

[email protected]

For patients with atrial fibrillation with at least one risk factor besides gender, oral anticoagulation is the optimal choice of antithrombotic therapy, experts said in a comprehensive, updated guideline.

©Thinkstock

The 113-page guideline, published in the journal CHEST^®, provides antithrombotic treatment recommendations for atrial fibrillation based on different levels of risk for stroke and in a variety of clinical presentations.

Altogether, the new guidelines highlight 60 key recommendations from the 12-person expert panel, chaired by Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham (England).

To develop the guidelines, the panel conducted a systematic literature review of relevant articles released since the 2012 publication of Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition).

Since that time, “there have been substantial developments in atrial fibrillation thromboprophylaxis, whether with regard to risk assessment, antithrombotic drugs, or non-drug approaches,” panelists said in their report.

The panel graded the quality of the new evidence found in the literature review, and then undertook a consensus development process. Each recommendation and statement required at least 80% consensus to pass.

Their treatment recommendations in the report are focused on three topic areas: stroke and bleeding risk assessment, antithrombotic therapy in general, and antithrombotic therapy in special situations, such as acute coronary syndrome and stenting, chronic atrial flutter, pregnancy, and chronic kidney disease.

Stroke prevention is the main priority in a “holistic approach” to management of atrial fibrillation, the panelists said in the report.

“Many of the risk factors leading to incident AF are also risk factors for ischemic stroke, and the promotion of an integrated or holistic approach to AF management is needed, incorporating stroke prevention, addressing symptoms and risk factor management,” they said.

No antithrombotic therapy is needed for patients who have atrial fibrillation without valvular heart disease, the panelists concluded.

For patients with at least one nongender CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk factor, oral anticoagulation is recommended over aspirin, aspirin and clopidogrel, or no therapy, they said.

In high-risk patients, including males with two or more CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk factors and females with three or more, novel oral anticoagulants are recommended over adjusted-dose warfarin, they added.

At each patient contact, patients with atrial fibrillation should receive bleeding risk assessment starting with potentially modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled blood pressure or excessive alcohol intake, according to the expert panel.

High-risk patients, as indicated by a HAS-BLED score of 3 or greater, should have more frequent and regular follow-up, they said.

The expert panel report concludes with a discussion on practical and patient-centered issues.

“Patient education is essential to provide patients with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take oral anticoagulants, and if they do, which oral anticoagulant they would prefer,” Dr. Lip and his colleagues said in their report.

Dr. Lip disclosed a potential conflict of interest with Boehringer Ingelheim. Expert panel members reported disclosures related to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Servier, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Lip GYH et al. CHEST. 2018 Aug 21. pii: S0012-3692(18)32244-X.

For patients with atrial fibrillation with at least one risk factor besides gender, oral anticoagulation is the optimal choice of antithrombotic therapy, experts said in a comprehensive, updated guideline.

©Thinkstock

The 113-page guideline, published in the journal CHEST^®, provides antithrombotic treatment recommendations for atrial fibrillation based on different levels of risk for stroke and in a variety of clinical presentations.

Altogether, the new guidelines highlight 60 key recommendations from the 12-person expert panel, chaired by Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham (England).

To develop the guidelines, the panel conducted a systematic literature review of relevant articles released since the 2012 publication of Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition).

Since that time, “there have been substantial developments in atrial fibrillation thromboprophylaxis, whether with regard to risk assessment, antithrombotic drugs, or non-drug approaches,” panelists said in their report.

The panel graded the quality of the new evidence found in the literature review, and then undertook a consensus development process. Each recommendation and statement required at least 80% consensus to pass.

Their treatment recommendations in the report are focused on three topic areas: stroke and bleeding risk assessment, antithrombotic therapy in general, and antithrombotic therapy in special situations, such as acute coronary syndrome and stenting, chronic atrial flutter, pregnancy, and chronic kidney disease.

Stroke prevention is the main priority in a “holistic approach” to management of atrial fibrillation, the panelists said in the report.

“Many of the risk factors leading to incident AF are also risk factors for ischemic stroke, and the promotion of an integrated or holistic approach to AF management is needed, incorporating stroke prevention, addressing symptoms and risk factor management,” they said.

No antithrombotic therapy is needed for patients who have atrial fibrillation without valvular heart disease, the panelists concluded.

For patients with at least one nongender CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk factor, oral anticoagulation is recommended over aspirin, aspirin and clopidogrel, or no therapy, they said.

In high-risk patients, including males with two or more CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk factors and females with three or more, novel oral anticoagulants are recommended over adjusted-dose warfarin, they added.

At each patient contact, patients with atrial fibrillation should receive bleeding risk assessment starting with potentially modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled blood pressure or excessive alcohol intake, according to the expert panel.

High-risk patients, as indicated by a HAS-BLED score of 3 or greater, should have more frequent and regular follow-up, they said.

The expert panel report concludes with a discussion on practical and patient-centered issues.

“Patient education is essential to provide patients with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take oral anticoagulants, and if they do, which oral anticoagulant they would prefer,” Dr. Lip and his colleagues said in their report.

Dr. Lip disclosed a potential conflict of interest with Boehringer Ingelheim. Expert panel members reported disclosures related to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Servier, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Lip GYH et al. CHEST. 2018 Aug 21. pii: S0012-3692(18)32244-X.

For patients with atrial fibrillation with at least one risk factor besides gender, oral anticoagulation is the optimal choice of antithrombotic therapy, experts said in a comprehensive, updated guideline.

©Thinkstock

The 113-page guideline, published in the journal CHEST^®, provides antithrombotic treatment recommendations for atrial fibrillation based on different levels of risk for stroke and in a variety of clinical presentations.

Altogether, the new guidelines highlight 60 key recommendations from the 12-person expert panel, chaired by Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham (England).

To develop the guidelines, the panel conducted a systematic literature review of relevant articles released since the 2012 publication of Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition).

Since that time, “there have been substantial developments in atrial fibrillation thromboprophylaxis, whether with regard to risk assessment, antithrombotic drugs, or non-drug approaches,” panelists said in their report.

The panel graded the quality of the new evidence found in the literature review, and then undertook a consensus development process. Each recommendation and statement required at least 80% consensus to pass.

Their treatment recommendations in the report are focused on three topic areas: stroke and bleeding risk assessment, antithrombotic therapy in general, and antithrombotic therapy in special situations, such as acute coronary syndrome and stenting, chronic atrial flutter, pregnancy, and chronic kidney disease.

Stroke prevention is the main priority in a “holistic approach” to management of atrial fibrillation, the panelists said in the report.

“Many of the risk factors leading to incident AF are also risk factors for ischemic stroke, and the promotion of an integrated or holistic approach to AF management is needed, incorporating stroke prevention, addressing symptoms and risk factor management,” they said.

No antithrombotic therapy is needed for patients who have atrial fibrillation without valvular heart disease, the panelists concluded.

For patients with at least one nongender CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk factor, oral anticoagulation is recommended over aspirin, aspirin and clopidogrel, or no therapy, they said.

In high-risk patients, including males with two or more CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk factors and females with three or more, novel oral anticoagulants are recommended over adjusted-dose warfarin, they added.

At each patient contact, patients with atrial fibrillation should receive bleeding risk assessment starting with potentially modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled blood pressure or excessive alcohol intake, according to the expert panel.

High-risk patients, as indicated by a HAS-BLED score of 3 or greater, should have more frequent and regular follow-up, they said.

The expert panel report concludes with a discussion on practical and patient-centered issues.

“Patient education is essential to provide patients with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take oral anticoagulants, and if they do, which oral anticoagulant they would prefer,” Dr. Lip and his colleagues said in their report.

Dr. Lip disclosed a potential conflict of interest with Boehringer Ingelheim. Expert panel members reported disclosures related to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Servier, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Lip GYH et al. CHEST. 2018 Aug 21. pii: S0012-3692(18)32244-X.

Photo from Shire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for vonicog alfa (Veyvondi), a recombinant von Willebrand factor (rVWF) product.

The EC approved vonicog alfa for the treatment of bleeding events and treatment/prevention of surgical bleeding in adults (age 18 and older) with von Willebrand disease (VWD) when desmopressin treatment alone is ineffective or not indicated.

The approval means Shire is authorized to market vonicog alfa in the European Union as well as in Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval of vonicog alfa was based on outcomes from three clinical trials. This includes a phase 1 study and a pair of phase 3 trials—one in a surgical setting and one in a non-surgical setting.

Data from these studies are available in the Summary of Product Characteristics for vonicog alfa.

Phase 1 trial

This trial (NCT00816660, 070701) enrolled patients with type 3 or severe type 1 VWD.

The goal was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of vonicog alfa (rVWF) combined at a fixed ratio with recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII)—referred to as “rVWF-rFVIII.” The researchers compared rVWF-rFVIII to plasma-derived (pd) VWF combined with pdFVIII (pdVWF-pdFVIII).

The safety analysis included 32 patients who received rVWF-rFVIII. There were no thrombotic events, serious adverse events, or new cases of inhibitors to VWF or FVIII in these patients.

The pharmacokinetic analysis included 19 patients. The researchers said the pharmacokinetics of rVWF ristocetin cofactor activity, VWF antigen, and collagen-binding activity were similar with rVWF-rFVIII and pdVWF-pdFVIII.

FVIII levels were higher after infusion with rVWF-rFVIII than with pdVWF-pdFVIII, even after 72 hours. The researchers said this suggests that rVWF alone “could maintain sufficient FVIII activity to treat a bleeding episode once the initial FVIII level has reached a therapeutic threshold.”

These results were published in Blood in 2013.

Phase 3: Non-surgical

This study (NCT01410227, 071001) included 49 patients with VWD who received vonicog alfa with or without rFVIII.

All participants had successful treatment of bleeding episodes. Most (96.9%) treated bleeds (192 bleeds in 22 patients) were given an “excellent” efficacy rating (as good as or better than expected).

Most bleeds (81.8%) were resolved with a single infusion of vonicog alfa, and the treatment had a mean half-life of 21.9 hours.

There were 8 adverse events considered related to vonicog alfa, and 2 were serious. One patient experienced 2 simultaneous serious events—chest discomfort and increased heart rate—but these were resolved.

There were no thrombotic events in this trial, no treatment-related binding or neutralizing antibodies against VWF, and no neutralizing antibodies against FVIII.

These results were published in Blood in 2015.

Phase 3: Surgical setting

This trial (NCT02283268, 071101) enrolled 15 adults with severe VWD who were undergoing elective surgical procedures (10 of them major procedures).

Patients received vonicog alfa at 40 to 60 IU per kg of body weight 12 to 24 hours before surgery. Within 3 hours of surgery, each patient’s FVIII level (FVIII:C) was assessed, with a target of 30 IU/dL for minor surgeries and 60 IU/dL for major surgeries.

Within an hour of surgery, patients received a dose of vonicog alfa, with or without rFVIII, depending on the target FVIII:C levels at the 3-hour assessment.

Ten patients received rVWF alone, 12 did not receive any preoperative FVIII, and 2 did not receive rVWF postoperatively.

Vonicog alfa demonstrated overall hemostatic efficacy, as assessed 24 hours after the last perioperative infusion or the completion of the study visit, whichever occurred earlier.

Intra- and post-operative hemostasis was rated as “excellent” (as good as or better than expected) in 60% of patients and “good” (probably as good as expected) in 40% of patients.

One patient developed deep vein thrombosis 3 days after undergoing hip replacement surgery.

One patient tested positive for binding antibodies to VWF. None of the patients developed binding antibodies against potential impurities such as rFurin, CHO-protein, or mouse IgG.

These results were presented at the WFH 2018 World Congress.

Photo from Shire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for vonicog alfa (Veyvondi), a recombinant von Willebrand factor (rVWF) product.

The EC approved vonicog alfa for the treatment of bleeding events and treatment/prevention of surgical bleeding in adults (age 18 and older) with von Willebrand disease (VWD) when desmopressin treatment alone is ineffective or not indicated.

The approval means Shire is authorized to market vonicog alfa in the European Union as well as in Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval of vonicog alfa was based on outcomes from three clinical trials. This includes a phase 1 study and a pair of phase 3 trials—one in a surgical setting and one in a non-surgical setting.

Data from these studies are available in the Summary of Product Characteristics for vonicog alfa.

Phase 1 trial

This trial (NCT00816660, 070701) enrolled patients with type 3 or severe type 1 VWD.

The goal was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of vonicog alfa (rVWF) combined at a fixed ratio with recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII)—referred to as “rVWF-rFVIII.” The researchers compared rVWF-rFVIII to plasma-derived (pd) VWF combined with pdFVIII (pdVWF-pdFVIII).

The safety analysis included 32 patients who received rVWF-rFVIII. There were no thrombotic events, serious adverse events, or new cases of inhibitors to VWF or FVIII in these patients.

The pharmacokinetic analysis included 19 patients. The researchers said the pharmacokinetics of rVWF ristocetin cofactor activity, VWF antigen, and collagen-binding activity were similar with rVWF-rFVIII and pdVWF-pdFVIII.

FVIII levels were higher after infusion with rVWF-rFVIII than with pdVWF-pdFVIII, even after 72 hours. The researchers said this suggests that rVWF alone “could maintain sufficient FVIII activity to treat a bleeding episode once the initial FVIII level has reached a therapeutic threshold.”

These results were published in Blood in 2013.

Phase 3: Non-surgical

This study (NCT01410227, 071001) included 49 patients with VWD who received vonicog alfa with or without rFVIII.

All participants had successful treatment of bleeding episodes. Most (96.9%) treated bleeds (192 bleeds in 22 patients) were given an “excellent” efficacy rating (as good as or better than expected).

Most bleeds (81.8%) were resolved with a single infusion of vonicog alfa, and the treatment had a mean half-life of 21.9 hours.

There were 8 adverse events considered related to vonicog alfa, and 2 were serious. One patient experienced 2 simultaneous serious events—chest discomfort and increased heart rate—but these were resolved.

There were no thrombotic events in this trial, no treatment-related binding or neutralizing antibodies against VWF, and no neutralizing antibodies against FVIII.

These results were published in Blood in 2015.

Phase 3: Surgical setting

This trial (NCT02283268, 071101) enrolled 15 adults with severe VWD who were undergoing elective surgical procedures (10 of them major procedures).

Patients received vonicog alfa at 40 to 60 IU per kg of body weight 12 to 24 hours before surgery. Within 3 hours of surgery, each patient’s FVIII level (FVIII:C) was assessed, with a target of 30 IU/dL for minor surgeries and 60 IU/dL for major surgeries.

Within an hour of surgery, patients received a dose of vonicog alfa, with or without rFVIII, depending on the target FVIII:C levels at the 3-hour assessment.

Ten patients received rVWF alone, 12 did not receive any preoperative FVIII, and 2 did not receive rVWF postoperatively.

Vonicog alfa demonstrated overall hemostatic efficacy, as assessed 24 hours after the last perioperative infusion or the completion of the study visit, whichever occurred earlier.

Intra- and post-operative hemostasis was rated as “excellent” (as good as or better than expected) in 60% of patients and “good” (probably as good as expected) in 40% of patients.

One patient developed deep vein thrombosis 3 days after undergoing hip replacement surgery.

One patient tested positive for binding antibodies to VWF. None of the patients developed binding antibodies against potential impurities such as rFurin, CHO-protein, or mouse IgG.

These results were presented at the WFH 2018 World Congress.

Photo from Shire

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for vonicog alfa (Veyvondi), a recombinant von Willebrand factor (rVWF) product.

The EC approved vonicog alfa for the treatment of bleeding events and treatment/prevention of surgical bleeding in adults (age 18 and older) with von Willebrand disease (VWD) when desmopressin treatment alone is ineffective or not indicated.

The approval means Shire is authorized to market vonicog alfa in the European Union as well as in Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval of vonicog alfa was based on outcomes from three clinical trials. This includes a phase 1 study and a pair of phase 3 trials—one in a surgical setting and one in a non-surgical setting.

Data from these studies are available in the Summary of Product Characteristics for vonicog alfa.

Phase 1 trial

This trial (NCT00816660, 070701) enrolled patients with type 3 or severe type 1 VWD.

The goal was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of vonicog alfa (rVWF) combined at a fixed ratio with recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII)—referred to as “rVWF-rFVIII.” The researchers compared rVWF-rFVIII to plasma-derived (pd) VWF combined with pdFVIII (pdVWF-pdFVIII).

The safety analysis included 32 patients who received rVWF-rFVIII. There were no thrombotic events, serious adverse events, or new cases of inhibitors to VWF or FVIII in these patients.

The pharmacokinetic analysis included 19 patients. The researchers said the pharmacokinetics of rVWF ristocetin cofactor activity, VWF antigen, and collagen-binding activity were similar with rVWF-rFVIII and pdVWF-pdFVIII.

FVIII levels were higher after infusion with rVWF-rFVIII than with pdVWF-pdFVIII, even after 72 hours. The researchers said this suggests that rVWF alone “could maintain sufficient FVIII activity to treat a bleeding episode once the initial FVIII level has reached a therapeutic threshold.”

These results were published in Blood in 2013.

Phase 3: Non-surgical

This study (NCT01410227, 071001) included 49 patients with VWD who received vonicog alfa with or without rFVIII.

All participants had successful treatment of bleeding episodes. Most (96.9%) treated bleeds (192 bleeds in 22 patients) were given an “excellent” efficacy rating (as good as or better than expected).

Most bleeds (81.8%) were resolved with a single infusion of vonicog alfa, and the treatment had a mean half-life of 21.9 hours.

There were 8 adverse events considered related to vonicog alfa, and 2 were serious. One patient experienced 2 simultaneous serious events—chest discomfort and increased heart rate—but these were resolved.

There were no thrombotic events in this trial, no treatment-related binding or neutralizing antibodies against VWF, and no neutralizing antibodies against FVIII.

These results were published in Blood in 2015.

Phase 3: Surgical setting

This trial (NCT02283268, 071101) enrolled 15 adults with severe VWD who were undergoing elective surgical procedures (10 of them major procedures).

Patients received vonicog alfa at 40 to 60 IU per kg of body weight 12 to 24 hours before surgery. Within 3 hours of surgery, each patient’s FVIII level (FVIII:C) was assessed, with a target of 30 IU/dL for minor surgeries and 60 IU/dL for major surgeries.

Within an hour of surgery, patients received a dose of vonicog alfa, with or without rFVIII, depending on the target FVIII:C levels at the 3-hour assessment.

Ten patients received rVWF alone, 12 did not receive any preoperative FVIII, and 2 did not receive rVWF postoperatively.

Vonicog alfa demonstrated overall hemostatic efficacy, as assessed 24 hours after the last perioperative infusion or the completion of the study visit, whichever occurred earlier.

Intra- and post-operative hemostasis was rated as “excellent” (as good as or better than expected) in 60% of patients and “good” (probably as good as expected) in 40% of patients.

One patient developed deep vein thrombosis 3 days after undergoing hip replacement surgery.

One patient tested positive for binding antibodies to VWF. None of the patients developed binding antibodies against potential impurities such as rFurin, CHO-protein, or mouse IgG.

These results were presented at the WFH 2018 World Congress.