Outcomes With Edoxaban Versus Warfarin in Patients With Previous Cerebrovascular Events: Findings From ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with atrial fibrillation and previous ischemic stroke (IS)/transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events despite anticoagulation. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we compared warfarin with edoxaban in patients with versus without previous IS/TIA. METHODS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a double-blind trial of 21 105 patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to warfarin (international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0; median time-in-therapeutic range, 68.4%) versus once-daily edoxaban (higher-dose edoxaban regimen [HDER], 60/30 mg; lower-dose edoxaban regimen, 30/15 mg) with 2.8-year median follow-up. Primary end points included all stroke/systemic embolic events (efficacy) and major bleeding (safety). Because only HDER is approved, we focused on the comparison of HDER versus warfarin. RESULTS: Of 5973 (28.3%) patients with previous IS/TIA, 67% had CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) >3 and 36% were ≥75 years. Compared with 15 132 without previous IS/TIA, patients with previous IS/TIA were at higher risk of both thromboembolism and bleeding (stroke/systemic embolic events 2.83% versus 1.42% per year; P<0.001; major bleeding 3.03% versus 2.64% per year; P<0.001; intracranial hemorrhage, 0.70% versus 0.40% per year; P<0.001). Among patients with previous IS/TIA, annualized intracranial hemorrhage rates were lower with HDER than with warfarin (0.62% versus 1.09%; absolute risk difference, 47 [8-85] per 10 000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.92; P=0.02). No treatment subgroup interactions were found for primary efficacy (P=0.86) or for intracranial hemorrhage (P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with atrial fibrillation with previous IS/TIA are at high risk of recurrent thromboembolism and bleeding. HDER is at least as effective and is safer than warfarin, regardless of the presence or the absence of previous IS or TIA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

The impact of renal dysfunction on outcomes in the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The ExTRACT-TIMI 25 (Enoxaparin and Thrombolysis Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 25) trial provided the opportunity to evaluate the impact of renal dysfunction on outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and compare enoxaparin (ENOX) and unfractionated heparin (UFH). BACKGROUND: It is unclear how renal dysfunction influences the balance between benefit and risk of antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: In the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 trial, 20,479 patients were randomized to UFH or ENOX. A reduced ENOX dose was administered to patients age > or =75 years and those with an estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl) <30 ml/min. RESULTS: A powerful relationship was observed between the severity of renal dysfunction (per 10 ml/min decrement in CrCl) and death, stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and major and minor bleeding (p < 0.001 for each). There was a progressive increase in the treatment benefit with ENOX on death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (p < 0.01) with better renal function. Net clinical benefit (death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal major bleeding) was significantly superior with ENOX (p < 0.001) for patients with a CrCl >60 ml/min (79.1% of the study population). Major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ for patients with preserved renal function (CrCl >90 ml/min), but in those with renal dysfunction there was a progressively greater increase in the risk of major and minor bleeding with ENOX. CONCLUSIONS: Enoxaparin was superior to UFH for the majority of subjects. With more severe renal dysfunction, the net clinical benefit between ENOX and UFH did not differ, despite the rise in adverse events in both treatment groups. Future studies should take renal dysfunction into account when assessing antithrombotic regimens.