Thrombosis

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.

PARIS – Treatment with a drug-eluting balloon rather than bare-metal stent provided superior outcomes in patients at high bleeding risk with large-vessel coronary lesions, according to the results of the randomized DEBUT study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“PCI with a drug-eluting balloon, with the possibility of bailout stenting if needed, is a safe and efficient novel option in patients with high bleeding risk,” Tuomas T. Rissanen, MD, PhD, said in presenting the results of the trial at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The major advantage of the drug-eluting balloon–only strategy is that DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] duration is short – usually 1 month – and positive remodeling of the treated vessel may occur because there is no metallic material present,” added Dr. Rissanen, head of the Heart Center at the University of Eastern Finland in Joensuu.

DEBUT (Drug-Eluting Balloon in Stable and Unstable Angina in a Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial) was a five-center, single-blind Finnish study in which patients at elevated bleeding risk – most often because they required oral anticoagulation and were over age 80 – were randomized to a paclitaxel-coated drug-eluting balloon (DEB) applied for a minimum of 30 seconds or a bare-metal stent (BMS). They were placed on DAPT for 1 month if they had stable coronary artery disease and 6 months after an acute coronary syndrome.

Participants had to have a target vessel diameter amenable for PCI with a DEB: that is, 2.5-4.0 mm. Patients with in-stent restenosis, an unprotected left main lesion, ST-elevation MI, chronic total occlusion, a dissection sufficient to reduce flow, greater than 30% recoil after predilation, or a bifurcation lesion requiring side branch stenting were excluded.

The impetus for the DEBUT trial was a recognition that, while the use of DEBs is recommended for treatment of in-stent restenosis by European Society of Cardiology guidelines, until DEBUT there were no high-quality randomized trial data regarding the use of such devices in de novo coronary lesions, the cardiologist noted.

The study results were unequivocal. Indeed, DEBUT, planned for 530 patients, was halted after enrollment of only 208 because an interim analysis showed clear superiority for the DEB strategy.

To wit, the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or target lesion revascularization at 9 months post PCI – occurred in 1.9% of the DEB group, compared with 12.4% of BMS recipients. This absolute 10.5% difference in risk translated to an 85% relative risk reduction.

Target lesion revascularization, a major secondary outcome, occurred in none of the DEB group and 4.8% of the BMS group. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 bleeding rates were similar at 11%-12% in the two groups.

Four percent of the DEB group required bailout stenting.

“Importantly, at 9 months, there were two definite stent thrombosis cases in the BMS group and no vessel closures in the DEB group,” Dr. Rissanen observed.

Discussant Antonio Colombo, MD, said, “I think a strategy with a drug-eluting balloon makes sense.”

Even though the 2-year results of the LEADERS FREE trial have shown that the BioFreedom polymer-free drug-coated stent proved safer and more effective than a BMS in high–bleeding risk patients with 1 month of DAPT (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jan 17;69[2]:162-71), not all PCI centers have access to the BioFreedom stent.

“Why do you need to place a stent in everyone? If you have a good result with the DEB, there is no reason to. Maybe you should use fractional flow reserve [FFR] to give reassurance that the result is really good, but I am in favor of this strategy. I think if you find a small dissection, and the residual lumen is large, it’s okay. It will usually heal. I think a dissection is problematic when the residual lumen is not large,” said Dr. Colombo, chief of invasive cardiology at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan.

There is a practical problem with the DEB-only strategy, however: “Many operators are uncomfortable in not using a stent in a large vessel, even when they have a good result,” he noted.

His fellow discussant Marc Bosiers, MD, said interventional cardiologists need to get over that hangup, which isn’t evidence based.

“We have the same experience in the periphery: We leave arteries as is after DEB therapy with only small Type A, B, and even C dissections, and we have fantastic results. We have total vessel remodeling. In many cases we see the patients back after 6 months or a year and do follow-up angiography, and you’ll be surprised at what you see with DEB alone,” according to Dr. Bosiers, head of the department of vascular surgery at St. Blasius Hospital in Dendermonde, Belgium.

Dr. Rissanen said that, for their next research project, he and his coinvestigators plan to mount a multicenter randomized trial of DEB versus a drug-eluting stent rather than a BMS in high–bleeding risk patients with de novo coronary lesions. And they’re considering ditching the 1 month of DAPT in the DEB patients.

“What is this 1-month DAPT for DEB based on, anyway? I don’t think we need it at all. We could use single-antiplatelet therapy or only the loading dose of the second agent,” he asserted.

But, as one of the discussants responded, that may well be true, and perhaps in the future a course of post-DEB therapy with a single antiplatelet agent or a direct-acting oral anticoagulant will be the routine strategy, but before clinical practice is revised such novel proposals will need to be well-grounded in proof of safety and efficacy. Dr. Rissanen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the DEBUT study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

PARIS – Treatment with a drug-eluting balloon rather than bare-metal stent provided superior outcomes in patients at high bleeding risk with large-vessel coronary lesions, according to the results of the randomized DEBUT study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“PCI with a drug-eluting balloon, with the possibility of bailout stenting if needed, is a safe and efficient novel option in patients with high bleeding risk,” Tuomas T. Rissanen, MD, PhD, said in presenting the results of the trial at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The major advantage of the drug-eluting balloon–only strategy is that DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] duration is short – usually 1 month – and positive remodeling of the treated vessel may occur because there is no metallic material present,” added Dr. Rissanen, head of the Heart Center at the University of Eastern Finland in Joensuu.

DEBUT (Drug-Eluting Balloon in Stable and Unstable Angina in a Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial) was a five-center, single-blind Finnish study in which patients at elevated bleeding risk – most often because they required oral anticoagulation and were over age 80 – were randomized to a paclitaxel-coated drug-eluting balloon (DEB) applied for a minimum of 30 seconds or a bare-metal stent (BMS). They were placed on DAPT for 1 month if they had stable coronary artery disease and 6 months after an acute coronary syndrome.

Participants had to have a target vessel diameter amenable for PCI with a DEB: that is, 2.5-4.0 mm. Patients with in-stent restenosis, an unprotected left main lesion, ST-elevation MI, chronic total occlusion, a dissection sufficient to reduce flow, greater than 30% recoil after predilation, or a bifurcation lesion requiring side branch stenting were excluded.

The impetus for the DEBUT trial was a recognition that, while the use of DEBs is recommended for treatment of in-stent restenosis by European Society of Cardiology guidelines, until DEBUT there were no high-quality randomized trial data regarding the use of such devices in de novo coronary lesions, the cardiologist noted.

The study results were unequivocal. Indeed, DEBUT, planned for 530 patients, was halted after enrollment of only 208 because an interim analysis showed clear superiority for the DEB strategy.

To wit, the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or target lesion revascularization at 9 months post PCI – occurred in 1.9% of the DEB group, compared with 12.4% of BMS recipients. This absolute 10.5% difference in risk translated to an 85% relative risk reduction.

Target lesion revascularization, a major secondary outcome, occurred in none of the DEB group and 4.8% of the BMS group. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 bleeding rates were similar at 11%-12% in the two groups.

Four percent of the DEB group required bailout stenting.

“Importantly, at 9 months, there were two definite stent thrombosis cases in the BMS group and no vessel closures in the DEB group,” Dr. Rissanen observed.

Discussant Antonio Colombo, MD, said, “I think a strategy with a drug-eluting balloon makes sense.”

Even though the 2-year results of the LEADERS FREE trial have shown that the BioFreedom polymer-free drug-coated stent proved safer and more effective than a BMS in high–bleeding risk patients with 1 month of DAPT (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jan 17;69[2]:162-71), not all PCI centers have access to the BioFreedom stent.

“Why do you need to place a stent in everyone? If you have a good result with the DEB, there is no reason to. Maybe you should use fractional flow reserve [FFR] to give reassurance that the result is really good, but I am in favor of this strategy. I think if you find a small dissection, and the residual lumen is large, it’s okay. It will usually heal. I think a dissection is problematic when the residual lumen is not large,” said Dr. Colombo, chief of invasive cardiology at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan.

There is a practical problem with the DEB-only strategy, however: “Many operators are uncomfortable in not using a stent in a large vessel, even when they have a good result,” he noted.

His fellow discussant Marc Bosiers, MD, said interventional cardiologists need to get over that hangup, which isn’t evidence based.

“We have the same experience in the periphery: We leave arteries as is after DEB therapy with only small Type A, B, and even C dissections, and we have fantastic results. We have total vessel remodeling. In many cases we see the patients back after 6 months or a year and do follow-up angiography, and you’ll be surprised at what you see with DEB alone,” according to Dr. Bosiers, head of the department of vascular surgery at St. Blasius Hospital in Dendermonde, Belgium.

Dr. Rissanen said that, for their next research project, he and his coinvestigators plan to mount a multicenter randomized trial of DEB versus a drug-eluting stent rather than a BMS in high–bleeding risk patients with de novo coronary lesions. And they’re considering ditching the 1 month of DAPT in the DEB patients.

“What is this 1-month DAPT for DEB based on, anyway? I don’t think we need it at all. We could use single-antiplatelet therapy or only the loading dose of the second agent,” he asserted.

But, as one of the discussants responded, that may well be true, and perhaps in the future a course of post-DEB therapy with a single antiplatelet agent or a direct-acting oral anticoagulant will be the routine strategy, but before clinical practice is revised such novel proposals will need to be well-grounded in proof of safety and efficacy. Dr. Rissanen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the DEBUT study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

PARIS – Treatment with a drug-eluting balloon rather than bare-metal stent provided superior outcomes in patients at high bleeding risk with large-vessel coronary lesions, according to the results of the randomized DEBUT study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“PCI with a drug-eluting balloon, with the possibility of bailout stenting if needed, is a safe and efficient novel option in patients with high bleeding risk,” Tuomas T. Rissanen, MD, PhD, said in presenting the results of the trial at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The major advantage of the drug-eluting balloon–only strategy is that DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] duration is short – usually 1 month – and positive remodeling of the treated vessel may occur because there is no metallic material present,” added Dr. Rissanen, head of the Heart Center at the University of Eastern Finland in Joensuu.

DEBUT (Drug-Eluting Balloon in Stable and Unstable Angina in a Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial) was a five-center, single-blind Finnish study in which patients at elevated bleeding risk – most often because they required oral anticoagulation and were over age 80 – were randomized to a paclitaxel-coated drug-eluting balloon (DEB) applied for a minimum of 30 seconds or a bare-metal stent (BMS). They were placed on DAPT for 1 month if they had stable coronary artery disease and 6 months after an acute coronary syndrome.

Participants had to have a target vessel diameter amenable for PCI with a DEB: that is, 2.5-4.0 mm. Patients with in-stent restenosis, an unprotected left main lesion, ST-elevation MI, chronic total occlusion, a dissection sufficient to reduce flow, greater than 30% recoil after predilation, or a bifurcation lesion requiring side branch stenting were excluded.

The impetus for the DEBUT trial was a recognition that, while the use of DEBs is recommended for treatment of in-stent restenosis by European Society of Cardiology guidelines, until DEBUT there were no high-quality randomized trial data regarding the use of such devices in de novo coronary lesions, the cardiologist noted.

The study results were unequivocal. Indeed, DEBUT, planned for 530 patients, was halted after enrollment of only 208 because an interim analysis showed clear superiority for the DEB strategy.

To wit, the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or target lesion revascularization at 9 months post PCI – occurred in 1.9% of the DEB group, compared with 12.4% of BMS recipients. This absolute 10.5% difference in risk translated to an 85% relative risk reduction.

Target lesion revascularization, a major secondary outcome, occurred in none of the DEB group and 4.8% of the BMS group. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 bleeding rates were similar at 11%-12% in the two groups.

Four percent of the DEB group required bailout stenting.

“Importantly, at 9 months, there were two definite stent thrombosis cases in the BMS group and no vessel closures in the DEB group,” Dr. Rissanen observed.

Discussant Antonio Colombo, MD, said, “I think a strategy with a drug-eluting balloon makes sense.”

Even though the 2-year results of the LEADERS FREE trial have shown that the BioFreedom polymer-free drug-coated stent proved safer and more effective than a BMS in high–bleeding risk patients with 1 month of DAPT (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jan 17;69[2]:162-71), not all PCI centers have access to the BioFreedom stent.

“Why do you need to place a stent in everyone? If you have a good result with the DEB, there is no reason to. Maybe you should use fractional flow reserve [FFR] to give reassurance that the result is really good, but I am in favor of this strategy. I think if you find a small dissection, and the residual lumen is large, it’s okay. It will usually heal. I think a dissection is problematic when the residual lumen is not large,” said Dr. Colombo, chief of invasive cardiology at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan.

There is a practical problem with the DEB-only strategy, however: “Many operators are uncomfortable in not using a stent in a large vessel, even when they have a good result,” he noted.

His fellow discussant Marc Bosiers, MD, said interventional cardiologists need to get over that hangup, which isn’t evidence based.

“We have the same experience in the periphery: We leave arteries as is after DEB therapy with only small Type A, B, and even C dissections, and we have fantastic results. We have total vessel remodeling. In many cases we see the patients back after 6 months or a year and do follow-up angiography, and you’ll be surprised at what you see with DEB alone,” according to Dr. Bosiers, head of the department of vascular surgery at St. Blasius Hospital in Dendermonde, Belgium.

Dr. Rissanen said that, for their next research project, he and his coinvestigators plan to mount a multicenter randomized trial of DEB versus a drug-eluting stent rather than a BMS in high–bleeding risk patients with de novo coronary lesions. And they’re considering ditching the 1 month of DAPT in the DEB patients.

“What is this 1-month DAPT for DEB based on, anyway? I don’t think we need it at all. We could use single-antiplatelet therapy or only the loading dose of the second agent,” he asserted.

But, as one of the discussants responded, that may well be true, and perhaps in the future a course of post-DEB therapy with a single antiplatelet agent or a direct-acting oral anticoagulant will be the routine strategy, but before clinical practice is revised such novel proposals will need to be well-grounded in proof of safety and efficacy. Dr. Rissanen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the DEBUT study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

A consensus working group from numerous international societies has published new guidelines for standards of practice in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The new guidelines differ somewhat from the Joint Commission guideline, released in 2015, primarily by raising the bar for the number of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) procedures that level 1 and level 2 stroke centers should perform annually in order to maintain a minimum safety threshold.

Ryan McVay/Thinkstock

Previous studies have shown lower mortality in high-volume centers, but setting minimum standards can be a challenge, especially in under-served countries and localities. The authors, led by first author Laurent Pierot, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Reims (France), acknowledge that newly established level 2 centers may struggle to meet the minimum requirement for MT procedures, but that this is acceptable as long as the volume is expected to meet the minimum within 12-24 months.

The guidelines were created by a working group of delegates from 13 international societies, including the American Society of Neuroradiology, European Stroke Organization, World Stroke Organization, and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

The publication in 2015 of studies showing the efficacy of MT in anterior circulation emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) stroke patients reverberated through the stroke care community, but posed a challenge in delivering this therapy to populations in diverse localities that have no access to level 1 stroke centers.

The guidelines, published online in the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, aim to ensure that facilities can handle not only the MT procedure, but also the medical management before, during, and after the procedure.

According to the new guidelines, level 2 centers should handle cases when a level 1 center cannot be reached within 2 hours. Level 2 centers should care for at least 100 AIS patients per year and should also have a relationship with a level 1 center to maintain staff training, teleconsultations, referrals, and other collaborations.

Previous studies have identified 35 or 36 MT procedures annually as a threshold to be considered “high volume,” a category that led to lower mortality. The new recommendations fall below that threshold because they are intended to apply broadly, to regions that may be under-served. In highly developed countries, stroke centers should follow regional or national guidelines that have higher limits.

Level 2 centers should perform at least 50 intracranial thrombectomy procedures for ELVO, and a total of 120 diagnostic or interventional neuroendovascular procedures per year. Individual interventionists should conduct at least 15 intracranial thrombectomy and 50 interventional neuroendovascular procedures per year.

Other recommendations cover additional details about personnel, as well as community and emergency medical services outreach.

In many ways, the recommendations are in line with the Joint Commission (TJC), according to David Tirschwell, MD, who is the medical director for the UW Medicine* Comprehensive Stroke Center at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle. He was not involved in the development of the new guidelines.

Dr. Tirschwell noted one key difference with respect to the number of MT procedures required to qualify. TJC offered no minimum annual procedures for Comprehensive Stroke Centers (equivalent to level 1), and only 15 for Thrombectomy Capable Stroke Centers (level 2), versus 50 in the new guidelines. The minimum procedure numbers are also higher for individual clinicians.

The guidelines also recommend that level 2 centers have at least three interventionalists on staff available at all times, while TJC does not address this element of staffing.

“The higher minimum number of procedures in the new international recommendations is a substantial difference and would make it harder for many hospitals to qualify, compared to the TJC requirements. As such, a lower number of hospitals may qualify, and such a barrier could prevent access to mechanical thrombectomy for many patients. On the other hand, the higher minimum number may ensure a higher quality of care, which can be seen as a strong positive feature,” Dr. Tirschwell said.

A spokesman for the Joint Commission and the American Heart Association indicated that they will review the new guidelines and consider whether to make changes to their 2015 guidelines.

SOURCE: Pierot Laurent et al. J Neurointervent Surg. 2018 Aug 28. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014287.

*Updated Sept. 14, 2018.

A consensus working group from numerous international societies has published new guidelines for standards of practice in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The new guidelines differ somewhat from the Joint Commission guideline, released in 2015, primarily by raising the bar for the number of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) procedures that level 1 and level 2 stroke centers should perform annually in order to maintain a minimum safety threshold.

Ryan McVay/Thinkstock

Previous studies have shown lower mortality in high-volume centers, but setting minimum standards can be a challenge, especially in under-served countries and localities. The authors, led by first author Laurent Pierot, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Reims (France), acknowledge that newly established level 2 centers may struggle to meet the minimum requirement for MT procedures, but that this is acceptable as long as the volume is expected to meet the minimum within 12-24 months.

The guidelines were created by a working group of delegates from 13 international societies, including the American Society of Neuroradiology, European Stroke Organization, World Stroke Organization, and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

The publication in 2015 of studies showing the efficacy of MT in anterior circulation emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) stroke patients reverberated through the stroke care community, but posed a challenge in delivering this therapy to populations in diverse localities that have no access to level 1 stroke centers.

The guidelines, published online in the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, aim to ensure that facilities can handle not only the MT procedure, but also the medical management before, during, and after the procedure.

According to the new guidelines, level 2 centers should handle cases when a level 1 center cannot be reached within 2 hours. Level 2 centers should care for at least 100 AIS patients per year and should also have a relationship with a level 1 center to maintain staff training, teleconsultations, referrals, and other collaborations.

Previous studies have identified 35 or 36 MT procedures annually as a threshold to be considered “high volume,” a category that led to lower mortality. The new recommendations fall below that threshold because they are intended to apply broadly, to regions that may be under-served. In highly developed countries, stroke centers should follow regional or national guidelines that have higher limits.

Level 2 centers should perform at least 50 intracranial thrombectomy procedures for ELVO, and a total of 120 diagnostic or interventional neuroendovascular procedures per year. Individual interventionists should conduct at least 15 intracranial thrombectomy and 50 interventional neuroendovascular procedures per year.

Other recommendations cover additional details about personnel, as well as community and emergency medical services outreach.

In many ways, the recommendations are in line with the Joint Commission (TJC), according to David Tirschwell, MD, who is the medical director for the UW Medicine* Comprehensive Stroke Center at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle. He was not involved in the development of the new guidelines.

Dr. Tirschwell noted one key difference with respect to the number of MT procedures required to qualify. TJC offered no minimum annual procedures for Comprehensive Stroke Centers (equivalent to level 1), and only 15 for Thrombectomy Capable Stroke Centers (level 2), versus 50 in the new guidelines. The minimum procedure numbers are also higher for individual clinicians.

The guidelines also recommend that level 2 centers have at least three interventionalists on staff available at all times, while TJC does not address this element of staffing.

“The higher minimum number of procedures in the new international recommendations is a substantial difference and would make it harder for many hospitals to qualify, compared to the TJC requirements. As such, a lower number of hospitals may qualify, and such a barrier could prevent access to mechanical thrombectomy for many patients. On the other hand, the higher minimum number may ensure a higher quality of care, which can be seen as a strong positive feature,” Dr. Tirschwell said.

A spokesman for the Joint Commission and the American Heart Association indicated that they will review the new guidelines and consider whether to make changes to their 2015 guidelines.

SOURCE: Pierot Laurent et al. J Neurointervent Surg. 2018 Aug 28. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014287.

*Updated Sept. 14, 2018.

A consensus working group from numerous international societies has published new guidelines for standards of practice in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The new guidelines differ somewhat from the Joint Commission guideline, released in 2015, primarily by raising the bar for the number of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) procedures that level 1 and level 2 stroke centers should perform annually in order to maintain a minimum safety threshold.

Ryan McVay/Thinkstock

Previous studies have shown lower mortality in high-volume centers, but setting minimum standards can be a challenge, especially in under-served countries and localities. The authors, led by first author Laurent Pierot, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Reims (France), acknowledge that newly established level 2 centers may struggle to meet the minimum requirement for MT procedures, but that this is acceptable as long as the volume is expected to meet the minimum within 12-24 months.

The guidelines were created by a working group of delegates from 13 international societies, including the American Society of Neuroradiology, European Stroke Organization, World Stroke Organization, and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

The publication in 2015 of studies showing the efficacy of MT in anterior circulation emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) stroke patients reverberated through the stroke care community, but posed a challenge in delivering this therapy to populations in diverse localities that have no access to level 1 stroke centers.

The guidelines, published online in the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, aim to ensure that facilities can handle not only the MT procedure, but also the medical management before, during, and after the procedure.

According to the new guidelines, level 2 centers should handle cases when a level 1 center cannot be reached within 2 hours. Level 2 centers should care for at least 100 AIS patients per year and should also have a relationship with a level 1 center to maintain staff training, teleconsultations, referrals, and other collaborations.

Previous studies have identified 35 or 36 MT procedures annually as a threshold to be considered “high volume,” a category that led to lower mortality. The new recommendations fall below that threshold because they are intended to apply broadly, to regions that may be under-served. In highly developed countries, stroke centers should follow regional or national guidelines that have higher limits.

Level 2 centers should perform at least 50 intracranial thrombectomy procedures for ELVO, and a total of 120 diagnostic or interventional neuroendovascular procedures per year. Individual interventionists should conduct at least 15 intracranial thrombectomy and 50 interventional neuroendovascular procedures per year.

Other recommendations cover additional details about personnel, as well as community and emergency medical services outreach.

In many ways, the recommendations are in line with the Joint Commission (TJC), according to David Tirschwell, MD, who is the medical director for the UW Medicine* Comprehensive Stroke Center at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle. He was not involved in the development of the new guidelines.

Dr. Tirschwell noted one key difference with respect to the number of MT procedures required to qualify. TJC offered no minimum annual procedures for Comprehensive Stroke Centers (equivalent to level 1), and only 15 for Thrombectomy Capable Stroke Centers (level 2), versus 50 in the new guidelines. The minimum procedure numbers are also higher for individual clinicians.

The guidelines also recommend that level 2 centers have at least three interventionalists on staff available at all times, while TJC does not address this element of staffing.

“The higher minimum number of procedures in the new international recommendations is a substantial difference and would make it harder for many hospitals to qualify, compared to the TJC requirements. As such, a lower number of hospitals may qualify, and such a barrier could prevent access to mechanical thrombectomy for many patients. On the other hand, the higher minimum number may ensure a higher quality of care, which can be seen as a strong positive feature,” Dr. Tirschwell said.

A spokesman for the Joint Commission and the American Heart Association indicated that they will review the new guidelines and consider whether to make changes to their 2015 guidelines.

SOURCE: Pierot Laurent et al. J Neurointervent Surg. 2018 Aug 28. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014287.

*Updated Sept. 14, 2018.

Antihemophilic factor

CSL Behring has announced that Idelvion (Coagulation Factor IX [Recombinant], Albumin Fusion Protein) is now available in a 3500 IU vial size.

Idelvion is also available in 250 IU, 500 IU, 1000 IU, and 2000 IU vial sizes.

For some patients requiring high doses of Idelvion, the new 3500 IU vial size will reduce the reconstitution time needed to prepare multiple vials for a similar dose.

Idelvion is a fusion protein linking recombinant coagulation factor IX with recombinant albumin, and it is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat children and adults with hemophilia B.

Idelvion can be used as routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes, for on-demand control and prevention of bleeding episodes, and for the perioperative management of bleeding.

Idelvion is approved for up to 14-day dosing in appropriate patients.

For more details on Idelvion, see the prescribing information.

Antihemophilic factor

CSL Behring has announced that Idelvion (Coagulation Factor IX [Recombinant], Albumin Fusion Protein) is now available in a 3500 IU vial size.

Idelvion is also available in 250 IU, 500 IU, 1000 IU, and 2000 IU vial sizes.

For some patients requiring high doses of Idelvion, the new 3500 IU vial size will reduce the reconstitution time needed to prepare multiple vials for a similar dose.

Idelvion is a fusion protein linking recombinant coagulation factor IX with recombinant albumin, and it is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat children and adults with hemophilia B.

Idelvion can be used as routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes, for on-demand control and prevention of bleeding episodes, and for the perioperative management of bleeding.

Idelvion is approved for up to 14-day dosing in appropriate patients.

For more details on Idelvion, see the prescribing information.

Antihemophilic factor

CSL Behring has announced that Idelvion (Coagulation Factor IX [Recombinant], Albumin Fusion Protein) is now available in a 3500 IU vial size.

Idelvion is also available in 250 IU, 500 IU, 1000 IU, and 2000 IU vial sizes.

For some patients requiring high doses of Idelvion, the new 3500 IU vial size will reduce the reconstitution time needed to prepare multiple vials for a similar dose.

Idelvion is a fusion protein linking recombinant coagulation factor IX with recombinant albumin, and it is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat children and adults with hemophilia B.

Idelvion can be used as routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes, for on-demand control and prevention of bleeding episodes, and for the perioperative management of bleeding.

Idelvion is approved for up to 14-day dosing in appropriate patients.

For more details on Idelvion, see the prescribing information.

Clinical question: Do factor Xa inhibitors reduce the incidence of strokes and systemic embolic events, compared with warfarin, in people with atrial fibrillation?

Background: Factor Xa inhibitors, called DOACs or direct-acting anticoagulants, and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are part of treatment guidelines for preventing stroke and systemic embolic events in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of treatment with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral or systemic embolic events in AF.

Study design: Cochrane Review update.

Setting: Data obtained from trial registers of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (August 2017), the Cochrane Heart Group and the Cochrane Stroke Group (September 2016), Embase (1980 to April 2017), and MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017). Authors also screened reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies, authors, and sponsors of relevant published trials.

Synopsis: The study included 42,084 participants from 10 trials with a diagnosis of AF who were eligible for long-term anticoagulation with warfarin (target INR 2-3).

The trials directly compared dose-adjusted warfarin with factor Xa inhibitors. Median follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 1.9 years, and composite primary endpoint was all strokes (both ischemic and hemorrhagic) and non–central nervous systemic embolic events. Factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased the number of strokes and systemic embolic events, compared with dose-adjusted warfarin (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.91), reduced the number of major bleeding events (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.34), and significantly reduced the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70). They also significantly reduced the number of all-cause deaths (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). One limitation of this study is the heterogeneity and hence lower quality of evidence. This study shows a small net clinical benefit of using factor Xa inhibitors in AF because of a reduction in strokes and systemic embolic events and also a lower risk of bleeding (including intracranial hemorrhages), compared with using warfarin.

Bottom line: Patients with AF have a lower incidence of strokes and systemic embolic events when treated with factor Xa inhibitors, compared with those treated with warfarin.

Citation: Bruins Slot KM et al. Factor Xa inhibitors versus vitamin K antagonists for preventing cerebral or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 6. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008980.pub3.

Dr. Veedu is a hospitalist and instructor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Do factor Xa inhibitors reduce the incidence of strokes and systemic embolic events, compared with warfarin, in people with atrial fibrillation?

Background: Factor Xa inhibitors, called DOACs or direct-acting anticoagulants, and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are part of treatment guidelines for preventing stroke and systemic embolic events in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of treatment with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral or systemic embolic events in AF.

Study design: Cochrane Review update.

Setting: Data obtained from trial registers of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (August 2017), the Cochrane Heart Group and the Cochrane Stroke Group (September 2016), Embase (1980 to April 2017), and MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017). Authors also screened reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies, authors, and sponsors of relevant published trials.

Synopsis: The study included 42,084 participants from 10 trials with a diagnosis of AF who were eligible for long-term anticoagulation with warfarin (target INR 2-3).

The trials directly compared dose-adjusted warfarin with factor Xa inhibitors. Median follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 1.9 years, and composite primary endpoint was all strokes (both ischemic and hemorrhagic) and non–central nervous systemic embolic events. Factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased the number of strokes and systemic embolic events, compared with dose-adjusted warfarin (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.91), reduced the number of major bleeding events (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.34), and significantly reduced the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70). They also significantly reduced the number of all-cause deaths (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). One limitation of this study is the heterogeneity and hence lower quality of evidence. This study shows a small net clinical benefit of using factor Xa inhibitors in AF because of a reduction in strokes and systemic embolic events and also a lower risk of bleeding (including intracranial hemorrhages), compared with using warfarin.

Bottom line: Patients with AF have a lower incidence of strokes and systemic embolic events when treated with factor Xa inhibitors, compared with those treated with warfarin.

Citation: Bruins Slot KM et al. Factor Xa inhibitors versus vitamin K antagonists for preventing cerebral or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 6. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008980.pub3.

Dr. Veedu is a hospitalist and instructor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Do factor Xa inhibitors reduce the incidence of strokes and systemic embolic events, compared with warfarin, in people with atrial fibrillation?

Background: Factor Xa inhibitors, called DOACs or direct-acting anticoagulants, and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are part of treatment guidelines for preventing stroke and systemic embolic events in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of treatment with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral or systemic embolic events in AF.

Study design: Cochrane Review update.

Setting: Data obtained from trial registers of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (August 2017), the Cochrane Heart Group and the Cochrane Stroke Group (September 2016), Embase (1980 to April 2017), and MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017). Authors also screened reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies, authors, and sponsors of relevant published trials.

Synopsis: The study included 42,084 participants from 10 trials with a diagnosis of AF who were eligible for long-term anticoagulation with warfarin (target INR 2-3).

The trials directly compared dose-adjusted warfarin with factor Xa inhibitors. Median follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 1.9 years, and composite primary endpoint was all strokes (both ischemic and hemorrhagic) and non–central nervous systemic embolic events. Factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased the number of strokes and systemic embolic events, compared with dose-adjusted warfarin (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.91), reduced the number of major bleeding events (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.34), and significantly reduced the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70). They also significantly reduced the number of all-cause deaths (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). One limitation of this study is the heterogeneity and hence lower quality of evidence. This study shows a small net clinical benefit of using factor Xa inhibitors in AF because of a reduction in strokes and systemic embolic events and also a lower risk of bleeding (including intracranial hemorrhages), compared with using warfarin.

Bottom line: Patients with AF have a lower incidence of strokes and systemic embolic events when treated with factor Xa inhibitors, compared with those treated with warfarin.

Citation: Bruins Slot KM et al. Factor Xa inhibitors versus vitamin K antagonists for preventing cerebral or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 6. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008980.pub3.

Dr. Veedu is a hospitalist and instructor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Vials and a syringe

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi™), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Sanofi Genzyme said it will work with relevant local authorities to make caplacizumab available in countries across Europe.

“The approval of Cablivi provides an important addition to the standard-of-care treatment for patients with aTTP in Europe because it can significantly reduce time to platelet count normalization and induce a clinically meaningful reduction in recurrences,” said Marie Scully, MD, of University College Hospital in London, UK.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

TITAN

Results from the TITAN trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016.

The study included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n=36) or placebo (n=39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care—daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

The study’s primary endpoint was time to response, which was defined as platelet count normalization (150,000/mm³ or higher).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response compared to patients in the placebo arm (P=0.005).

Among the 69 patients who had not undergone a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to response was 3.0 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.9 days in the placebo arm.

Among the 6 patients who did undergo a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to a response was 2.4 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.3 days in the placebo arm.

The rate of confirmed response was 86.1% (n=31) in the caplacizumab arm and 71.8% (n=28) in the placebo arm.

There were 541 adverse events (AEs) in 34 of the 35 evaluable patients receiving caplacizumab (97%) and 522 AEs in all 37 evaluable patients receiving placebo (100%). TTP exacerbations and relapses were not included as AEs.

The rate of AEs thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was due to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was due to cerebral hemorrhage.

HERCULES

Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n=72) or placebo (n=73) in addition to standard care—plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as an initial platelet count of at least 150 x 10⁹/L with subsequent stop of daily plasma exchange within 5 days.

There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm compared to the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P<0.01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n=9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n=36) in the placebo arm (P<0.0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n=0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n=3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n=3) and 38.4% (n=28), respectively. The incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n=6) and 8.2% (n=6), respectively.

The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related AE was 57.7% in the caplacizumab arm and 43.8% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related serious AE was 14.1% (n=10) and 5.5% (n=4), respectively. The rate of discontinuation due to at least one AE was 7.0% and 12.3%, respectively.

During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.

Vials and a syringe

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi™), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Sanofi Genzyme said it will work with relevant local authorities to make caplacizumab available in countries across Europe.

“The approval of Cablivi provides an important addition to the standard-of-care treatment for patients with aTTP in Europe because it can significantly reduce time to platelet count normalization and induce a clinically meaningful reduction in recurrences,” said Marie Scully, MD, of University College Hospital in London, UK.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

TITAN

Results from the TITAN trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016.

The study included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n=36) or placebo (n=39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care—daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

The study’s primary endpoint was time to response, which was defined as platelet count normalization (150,000/mm³ or higher).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response compared to patients in the placebo arm (P=0.005).

Among the 69 patients who had not undergone a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to response was 3.0 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.9 days in the placebo arm.

Among the 6 patients who did undergo a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to a response was 2.4 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.3 days in the placebo arm.

The rate of confirmed response was 86.1% (n=31) in the caplacizumab arm and 71.8% (n=28) in the placebo arm.

There were 541 adverse events (AEs) in 34 of the 35 evaluable patients receiving caplacizumab (97%) and 522 AEs in all 37 evaluable patients receiving placebo (100%). TTP exacerbations and relapses were not included as AEs.

The rate of AEs thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was due to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was due to cerebral hemorrhage.

HERCULES

Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n=72) or placebo (n=73) in addition to standard care—plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as an initial platelet count of at least 150 x 10⁹/L with subsequent stop of daily plasma exchange within 5 days.

There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm compared to the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P<0.01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n=9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n=36) in the placebo arm (P<0.0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n=0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n=3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n=3) and 38.4% (n=28), respectively. The incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n=6) and 8.2% (n=6), respectively.

The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related AE was 57.7% in the caplacizumab arm and 43.8% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related serious AE was 14.1% (n=10) and 5.5% (n=4), respectively. The rate of discontinuation due to at least one AE was 7.0% and 12.3%, respectively.

During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.

Vials and a syringe

The European Commission has granted marketing authorization for caplacizumab (Cablivi™), a humanized bivalent nanobody that inhibits the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets.

Caplacizumab is now approved to treat adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in all member countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Sanofi Genzyme said it will work with relevant local authorities to make caplacizumab available in countries across Europe.

“The approval of Cablivi provides an important addition to the standard-of-care treatment for patients with aTTP in Europe because it can significantly reduce time to platelet count normalization and induce a clinically meaningful reduction in recurrences,” said Marie Scully, MD, of University College Hospital in London, UK.

The European Commission’s approval of caplacizumab is supported by data from the phase 2 TITAN study and the phase 3 HERCULES study.

TITAN

Results from the TITAN trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016.

The study included 75 aTTP patients who were randomized to caplacizumab (n=36) or placebo (n=39), with all patients receiving the current standard of care—daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

The study’s primary endpoint was time to response, which was defined as platelet count normalization (150,000/mm³ or higher).

Patients in the caplacizumab arm had a 39% reduction in the median time to response compared to patients in the placebo arm (P=0.005).

Among the 69 patients who had not undergone a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to response was 3.0 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.9 days in the placebo arm.

Among the 6 patients who did undergo a plasma exchange session before enrollment, the median time to a response was 2.4 days in the caplacizumab arm and 4.3 days in the placebo arm.

The rate of confirmed response was 86.1% (n=31) in the caplacizumab arm and 71.8% (n=28) in the placebo arm.

There were 541 adverse events (AEs) in 34 of the 35 evaluable patients receiving caplacizumab (97%) and 522 AEs in all 37 evaluable patients receiving placebo (100%). TTP exacerbations and relapses were not included as AEs.

The rate of AEs thought to be related to the study drug was 17% in the caplacizumab arm and 11% in the placebo arm. The rate of AEs that were possibly related was 54% and 8%, respectively. The rate of serious AEs was 37% and 32%, respectively.

There were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and two in the placebo arm. One death was due to severe, refractory TTP, and the other was due to cerebral hemorrhage.

HERCULES

Results from the HERCULES trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled patients with an acute episode of aTTP. They were randomized to receive caplacizumab (n=72) or placebo (n=73) in addition to standard care—plasma exchange and immunosuppression.

The study’s primary endpoint was the time to platelet count response (normalization), which was defined as an initial platelet count of at least 150 x 10⁹/L with subsequent stop of daily plasma exchange within 5 days.

There was a significant reduction in time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm compared to the placebo arm. The platelet normalization rate ratio was 1.55 (P<0.01).

A secondary endpoint was the combination of aTTP-related death, aTTP recurrence, and at least one major thromboembolic event during study treatment. The incidence of this combined endpoint was 12.7% (n=9) in the caplacizumab arm and 49.3% (n=36) in the placebo arm (P<0.0001).

The incidence of aTTP-related death was 0% (n=0) in the caplacizumab arm and 4.1% (n=3) in the placebo arm. The incidence of aTTP recurrence was 4.2% (n=3) and 38.4% (n=28), respectively. The incidence of at least one major thromboembolic event was 8.5% (n=6) and 8.2% (n=6), respectively.

The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related AE was 57.7% in the caplacizumab arm and 43.8% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients with at least one study-drug-related serious AE was 14.1% (n=10) and 5.5% (n=4), respectively. The rate of discontinuation due to at least one AE was 7.0% and 12.3%, respectively.

During the treatment period, there were no deaths in the caplacizumab arm and three deaths in the placebo arm. There was one death in the caplacizumab arm during the follow-up period, but it was considered unrelated to caplacizumab.