Dabigatran or Aspirin in East Asian Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: RE-SPECT ESUS Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We assessed the outcomes of dabigatran versus aspirin in a prespecified subgroup analysis of East Asian patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source in the RE-SPECT ESUS trial (Randomized, Double-Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source). METHODS: Patients with a recent embolic stroke of undetermined source were randomized to dabigatran (150 or 110 mg BID) or aspirin (100 mg QD). The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent stroke; the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The East Asia cohort was compared with patients from all other countries (non-East Asia cohort). RESULTS: Overall, 988 of 5390 patients (18%) were randomized in East Asia. During a median follow-up of 18.8 months, there was no statistically significant difference in recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.41-1.03]) or major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.57-1.91]) in East Asian patients receiving dabigatran versus aspirin. Death from any cause occurred more often in the dabigatran versus the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 3.98 [95% CI, 1.32-12.01]). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of dabigatran versus aspirin was consistent between cohorts, with no apparent superiority for dabigatran over aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02239120.

Dabigatran vs. Aspirin for Secondary Prevention After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source　- Japanese Subanalysis of the RE-SPECT ESUS Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The international Randomized, Double-Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the EfficaCy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients with Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (RE-SPECT ESUS) trial did not demonstrate superiority of dabigatran over aspirin for reduction of recurrent strokes in patients with embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS). Based on pre-defined subanalyses, the safety and efficacy of dabigatran vs. aspirin in Japanese patients was assessed.Methods and Results:ESUS patients were randomized to receive either dabigatran (150 or 110 mg twice daily) or aspirin (100 mg once daily). Of 5,390 patients randomized, 594 were Japanese. Most Japanese patients (99.8%) underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging for trial screening, compared to 76.8% of non-Japanese (P<0.0001). In the Japanese cohort, over a 19.4-month median follow-up period, recurrent stroke as the primary outcome occurred in 20/294 patients (4.3%/year) in the dabigatran group and 38/300 (8.3%/year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.94). Major bleeding occurred in 12 patients (2.5%/year) and 17 patients (3.5%/year), respectively (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.34-1.52). In contrast, in the non-Japanese cohort, recurrent stroke occurred in 4.1%/year and 4.3%/year, respectively, showing no apparent difference in recurrent stroke for dabigatran vs. aspirin (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14). The P-interaction for treatment and region did not reach statistical significance (P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran was putatively associated with a lower relative risk of recurrent stroke compared with aspirin in Japanese ESUS patients.

Safety and efficacy of faldaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon α-2b and ribavirin in Japanese patients with genotype-1 chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

AIM: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A A protease inhibitor faldaprevir plus pegylated interferon α-2b and ribavirin (PegIFNα-2b/RBV) in Japanese patients with HCV genotype-1 infection. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients were randomized (1:1) to faldaprevir 120 mg q.d. for 12 or 24 weeks (response-guided therapy [RGT], n = 44), or faldaprevir 240 mg q.d. for 12 weeks (n = 43), each combined with PegIFNα-2b/RBV for 24 or 48 weeks (RGT). Response-guided therapy was based on early treatment success (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL at week 4 and <25 IU/mL undetected at week 8). Treatment-experienced patients received 240 mg q.d. for 24 weeks, plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV RGT (24 or 48 weeks, prior relapsers, n = 29) or PegIFNα-2b/RBV (48 weeks, 5 prior partial responders/breakthroughs, 10 prior null responders). The primary objective was safety; sustained virologic response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12) was a secondary end-point. RESULTS: All except one patient experienced drug-related adverse events. Adverse events led to faldaprevir discontinuation in 1 (2%), 13 (20%), and 3 (6.8%) patients on faldaprevir 120 mg, faldaprevir 240 mg 12 weeks, and faldaprevir 240 mg 24 weeks, respectively. The SVR12 rates were: 86% with faldaprevir 120 mg and 74% with faldaprevir 240 mg among treatment-naïve patients; and 86%, 60%, and 40% among prior relapsers, partial responders/breakthroughs, and null responders, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-naïve Japanese patients, faldaprevir 120 mg q.d. plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV was better tolerated than faldaprevir 240 mg q.d. plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV, with at least comparable efficacy. In treatment-experienced patients, most prior relapsers achieved SVR12 with 24 weeks of faldaprevir 240 mg q.d. plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01579474.

Safety and efficacy of faldaprevir with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in Japanese patients with chronic genotype-1 hepatitis C infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Faldaprevir (BI 201335) is a potent once-daily (QD) NS3/4A protease inhibitor for the treatment of patients with genotype-1 (GT-1) hepatitis C virus (HCV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of faldaprevir plus pegylated interferon alfa-2a (PegIFN) and ribavirin (RBV) in Japanese patients infected with chronic GT-1 HCV. METHODS: Part 1 of this phase II study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ascending study. Treatment-naïve patients received faldaprevir 120 or 240 mg QD, or placebo, plus PegIFN/RBV for 4 weeks, then PegIFN/RBV alone for 44 weeks. In Part 2 (open label), treatment-experienced patients received faldaprevir 240 mg QD plus PegIFN/RBV for 4 weeks, then PegIFN/RBV alone for 44 weeks. Efficacy was assessed using sustained virological response (SVR) 24 weeks after treatment completion. The pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of faldaprevir were also assessed. RESULTS: SVR was achieved by 4/6 (67%) treatment-naïve patients treated with faldaprevir 120 mg QD, 5/6 (83%) patients treated with faldaprevir 240 mg QD and 2/4 (50%) patients who received placebo. Of the treatment-experienced patients, 3/6 (50%) achieved SVR. Faldaprevir was well tolerated. There was one serious adverse event, which was not considered to be treatment related. Rash and hyperbilirubinaemia were more frequently reported with faldaprevir than with placebo in treatment-naïve patients, but no cases were severe or serious and none led to discontinuation. Steady-state plasma concentrations of faldaprevir were reached within 7 days of QD dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Faldaprevir with PegIFN/RBV was efficacious and well tolerated, supporting further evaluation of this combination in Japanese patients.

The Japanese aggrenox (extended-release dipyridamole plus aspirin) stroke prevention versus aspirin programme (JASAP) study: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in treatment, stroke still carries a high death toll and disability in Asia. Extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) has consistently been shown to be superior over conventional platelet inhibition by ASA. ER-DP plus ASA is well established in the secondary prevention of stroke in a lot of countries including the USA and Europe. DP has an established benefit in the treatment of heart disease in Japan; however, for the prevention of stroke, the fixed-dose combination of ER-DP plus ASA has only been investigated in a small number of patients in Japan. METHODS: The aim of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of ER-DP plus ASA versus 81 mg ASA over 1 year. The primary end point of this study was the event rate of recurrent ischemic stroke (fatal or nonfatal) using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1,294 enrolled patients, the primary end point was analyzed in 652 patients in the ER-DP plus ASA group and 639 in the ASA group. The incidence of ischemic stroke was 6.9% for ER-DP plus ASA and 5.0% for ASA with a hazard ratio of 1.47 (95% confidence interval 0.93-2.31) for the primary end point. The ASA treatment group was found to have a lower than expected yearly event rate, compared to other studies in Japanese stroke patients. Noninferiority of ER-DP plus ASA versus ASA could not be shown. The risks of major bleeding events and intracranial hemorrhage were found to be similar between the treatment arms. There were 4 deaths (0.6%) in the ER-DP plus ASA group and 10 (1.6%) in the ASA group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study are inconclusive. Noninferiority of ER-DP plus ASA versus ASA could not be established, a difference between treatments could not be shown for the primary end point. Possible reasons for this result include a small sample size, low event rates and too short a treatment duration (ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT00311402).