Asundexian versus Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke prevention with direct-acting oral anticoagulant agents in patients with atrial fibrillation confers a risk of bleeding and limits their use. Asundexian, an activated factor XI (XIa) inhibitor, is an oral anticoagulant that may prevent strokes with less bleeding. METHODS: In a phase 3, international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to receive asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily or standard-dose apixaban. The primary efficacy objective was to determine whether asundexian is at least noninferior to apixaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety objective was to determine whether asundexian is superior to apixaban with respect to major bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 14,810 randomly assigned patients were included in the intention-to-treat population. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 73.9±7.7 years, 35.2% were women, 18.6% had chronic kidney disease, 18.2% had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, 16.8% had received oral anticoagulants for no more than 6 weeks, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) was 4.3±1.3. The trial was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 98 patients (1.3%) assigned to receive asundexian and in 26 (0.4%) assigned to receive apixaban (hazard ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46 to 5.83). Major bleeding occurred in 17 patients (0.2%) who received asundexian and in 53 (0.7%) who received apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.55). The incidence of any adverse event appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke, treatment with asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily was associated with a higher incidence of stroke or systemic embolism than treatment with apixaban in the period before the trial was stopped prematurely. There were fewer major bleeding events with asundexian than with apixaban during this time. (Funded by Bayer; OCEANIC-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05643573; EudraCT number, 2022-000758-28.).

Corrigendum: Bleeding Risk Prediction in Patients Treated with Antithrombotic Drugs According to the Anatomic Site of Bleeding, Indication for Treatment, and Time Since Treatment Initiation.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1055/a-2259-1134.].

Bleeding Risk Prediction in Patients Treated with Antithrombotic Drugs According to the Anatomic Site of Bleeding, Indication for Treatment, and Time Since Treatment Initiation.

Background Reasons for the relatively poor performance of bleeding prediction models are not well understood but may relate to differences in predictors for various anatomical sites of bleeding. Methods We pooled individual participant data from four randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapy in patients with coronary and peripheral artery diseases, embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), or atrial fibrillation. We examined discrimination and calibration of models for any major bleeding, major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), according to the time since initiation of antithrombotic therapy, and indication for antithrombotic therapy. Results Of 57,813 patients included, 1,948 (3.37%) experienced major bleeding, including 717 (1.24%) major GI bleeding and 274 (0.47%) ICH. The model derived to predict major bleeding at 1 year from any site (c-index, 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.71) performed similarly when applied to predict major GI bleeding (0.71, 0.69-0.74), but less well to predict ICH (0.64, 0.61-0.69). Models derived to predict GI bleeding (0.75, 0.74-0.78) and ICH (0.72, 0.70-0.79) performed better than the general major bleeding model. Discrimination declined over time since the initiation of antithrombotic treatment, stabilizing at approximately 2 years for any major bleeding and major GI bleeding and 1 year for ICH. Discrimination was best for the model predicting ICH in the ESUS population (0.82, 0.78-0.92) and worst for the model predicting any major bleeding in the coronary and peripheral artery disease population (0.66, 0.65-0.69). Conclusion Performance of risk prediction models for major bleeding is affected by site of bleeding, time since initiation of antithrombotic therapy, and indication for antithrombotic therapy.

Bleeding Outcomes in Patients Treated With Asundexian in Phase II Trials.

BACKGROUND: Phase II trials of asundexian were underpowered to detect important differences in bleeding. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to obtain best estimates of effects of asundexian vs active control/placebo on major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) and all bleeding, describe most common sites of bleeding, and explore association between asundexian exposure and bleeding. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of 3 phase II trials of asundexian in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or stroke. Bleeding was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) criteria. RESULTS: In patients with AF (n = 755), both asundexian 20 mg and 50 mg once daily vs apixaban had fewer major/CRNM events (3 of 249; incidence rate [IR] per 100 patient-years 5.47 vs 1 of 254 [IR: not calculable] vs 6 of 250 [IR: 11.10]) and all bleeding (12 of 249 [IR: 22.26] vs 10 of 254 [IR: 18.21] vs 26 of 250 [IR: 50.56]). In patients with recent AMI or stroke (n = 3,409), asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, and 50 mg once daily compared with placebo had similar rates of major/CRNM events (44 of 840 [IR: 7.55] vs 42 of 843 [IR: 7.04] vs 56 of 845 [IR: 9.63] vs 41 of 851 [IR: 6.99]) and all bleeding (107 of 840 [IR: 19.57] vs 123 of 843 [IR: 22.45] vs 130 of 845 [IR: 24.19] vs 129 of 851 [IR: 23.84]). Most common sites of major/CRNM bleeding with asundexian were gastrointestinal, respiratory, urogenital, and skin. There was no significant association between asundexian exposure and major/CRNM bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of phase II trials involving >500 bleeds highlight the potential for improved safety of asundexian compared with apixaban and similar safety compared with placebo. Further evidence on the efficacy of asundexian awaits the results of ongoing phase III trials.

A Multicenter, Phase 2, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Dose-Finding Trial of the Oral Factor XIa Inhibitor Asundexian to Prevent Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Oral activated factor XI (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without substantially increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6 to 12 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on FXIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo. RESULTS: The median age was 68 years, 23% of participants were women, 51% had ST-segment-elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity, with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian versus placebo: hazard ratio, 0.98 [90% CI, 0.71-1.35]). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg versus placebo: hazard ratio, 1.05 [90% CI, 0.69-1.61]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients who experienced acute MI. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04304534; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search; Unique identifier: 2019-003244-79.

Budget Impact of Appropriate Low-Dose Aspirin Use for Primary and Secondary Cardiovascular Event Prevention in the Managed Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in adults in the United States and constitutes a substantial portion of overall national health expenditures. Aspirin is generally recommended for primary cardiovascular event prevention based on a given patient's underlying cardiovascular event risk profile, particularly for those aged 50-69 years with a 10-year risk of coronary heart disease of ≥ 10%. Evidence-based clinical guidelines are in agreement for secondary prevention consisting of lifelong, low-dose aspirin therapy following a cardiovascular event. Despite these recommendations, research suggests suboptimal concordance between guidelines and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of appropriate low-dose aspirin use for primary and secondary cardiovascular event prevention compared with current rates of low-dose aspirin use. METHODS: An economic model measuring budget spend for cardiovascular events, aspirin, and aspirin-related adverse events was developed from the perspective of a U.S. payer. The model compared current rates of aspirin use to appropriate rates of aspirin use according to guideline recommendations for both primary and secondary cardiovascular event prevention. RESULTS: For a hypothetical plan with 1 million members, an estimated 18,026 patients were on aspirin therapy for primary cardiovascular event prevention, while guidelines recommend that 55,788 patients should have been on aspirin therapy for this indication. Optimal aspirin use in the primary cardiovascular event prevention population reduced the number of nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs; -367), ischemic strokes (-232), and deaths (-60), with an increase in the number of gastrointestinal bleeds (169) and hemorrhagic strokes (98). Evidence-based guideline-compliant use of aspirin for primary cardiovascular event prevention resulted in total cost savings of approximately $4.2 million over a 5-year time horizon. For secondary cardiovascular event prevention, an estimated 48,663 patients were on aspirin, while clinical guidelines recommend that 71,316 patients should have been on aspirin therapy for this indication. Optimal aspirin use in secondary cardiovascular event prevention reduced the number of nonfatal MIs (-515), ischemic strokes (-375), and deaths (-217), with an increase in the number of gastrointestinal bleeds (98) and hemorrhagic strokes (58). Evidence-based guideline-compliant use of aspirin for secondary cardiovascular event prevention resulted in total cost savings of approximately $11 million over a 5-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate low-dose aspirin use for primary and secondary cardiovascular event prevention can result in improved patient outcomes with significant cost savings for U.S. payers. As a simple and inexpensive prophylactic measure for cardiovascular event prevention, aspirin use should be carefully considered in all appropriate at-risk adult patients. DISCLOSURES: Development of this manuscript and the corresponding budget impact analysis was funded by Bayer. Coppolecchia, Williamson, and Cameron are employees of Bayer. Carlton, Lennert, and Moradi are employees of Xcenda, a consulting firm that received funding from Bayer to assist in the completion of this study. Khalaf-Gillard was an employee of Xcenda at the time of the study. The corresponding poster was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX.

Use of aspirin to reduce risk of initial vascular events in patients at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (ARRIVE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains controversial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of aspirin versus placebo in patients with a moderate estimated risk of a first cardiovascular event. METHODS: ARRIVE is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study done in seven countries. Eligible patients were aged 55 years (men) or 60 years (women) and older and had an average cardiovascular risk, deemed to be moderate on the basis of the number of specific risk factors. We excluded patients at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or other bleeding, or diabetes. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation code to receive enteric-coated aspirin tablets (100 mg) or placebo tablets, once daily. Patients, investigators, and others involved in treatment or data analysis were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite outcome of time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack. Safety endpoints were haemorrhagic events and incidence of other adverse events, and were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00501059. FINDINGS: Between July 5, 2007, and Nov 15, 2016, 12 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive aspirin (n=6270) or placebo (n=6276) at 501 study sites. Median follow-up was 60 months. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint occurred in 269 (4·29%) patients in the aspirin group versus 281 (4·48%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·96; 95% CI 0·81-1·13; p=0·6038). Gastrointestinal bleeding events (mostly mild) occurred in 61 (0·97%) patients in the aspirin group versus 29 (0·46%) in the placebo group (HR 2·11; 95% CI 1·36-3·28; p=0·0007). The overall incidence rate of serious adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (n=1266 [20·19%] in the aspirin group vs n=1311 [20·89%] in the placebo group. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (n=5142 [82·01%] vs n=5129 [81·72%] in the placebo group). The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low (n=1050 [16·75%] vs n=850 [13·54%] in the placebo group; p<0·0001). There were 321 documented deaths in the intention-to-treat population (n=160 [2·55%] vs n=161 [2·57%] of 6276 patients in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: The event rate was much lower than expected, which is probably reflective of contemporary risk management strategies, making the study more representative of a low-risk population. The role of aspirin in primary prevention among patients at moderate risk could therefore not be addressed. Nonetheless, the findings with respect to aspirin's effects are consistent with those observed in the previously published low-risk primary prevention studies. FUNDING: Bayer.

Antiplatelet effects of aspirin with phytosterols: comparison with non-enteric coated aspirin alone.

The novel combination of aspirin and phytosterols may be a potential strategy to treat patients with cardiovascular disease. We sought to determine if the antiplatelet effects of a combination caplet of 81 mg aspirin with 400 mg phytosterols differed from the antiplatelet effects of non-enteric coated aspirin. The first five days of aspirin therapy alone (T1) produced marked reductions in collagen-induced, ADP-induced, and archidonic acid- induced platelet aggregation, and in serum and urine TxB(2) compared to baseline. Five days after randomization to aspirin alone versus aspirin+phytosterols (T2), there were no differences in any measurement of platelet function within each group compared to T1 or between groups. The present study suggests that the antiplatelet effect of non-enteric coated 81 mg twice-daily aspirin therapy alone is not affected by the addition of phytosterols in a combination product.