Effects of RBT-1 on preconditioning response biomarkers in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft or heart valve surgery: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

Background: RBT-1 is a combination drug of stannic protoporfin (SnPP) and iron sucrose (FeS) that elicits a preconditioning response through activation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and iron-scavenging pathways, as measured by heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and ferritin, respectively. Our primary aim was to determine whether RBT-1 administered before surgery would safely and effectively elicit a preconditioning response in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: This phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, adaptive trial, conducted in 19 centres across the USA, Canada, and Australia, enrolled patients scheduled to undergo non-emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or heart valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive either a single intravenous infusion of high-dose RBT-1 (90 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), low-dose RBT-1 (45 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), or placebo within 24-48 h before surgery. The primary outcome was a preoperative preconditioning response, measured by a composite of plasma HO-1, IL-10, and ferritin. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory parameters. Prespecified adaptive criteria permitted early stopping and enrichment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04564833. Findings: Between Aug 4, 2021, and Nov 9, 2022, of 135 patients who were enrolled and randomly allocated to a study group (46 high-dose, 45 low-dose, 44 placebo), 132 (98%) were included in the primary analysis (46 high-dose, 42 low-dose, 44 placebo). At interim, the trial proceeded to full enrollment without enrichment. RBT-1 led to a greater preconditioning response than did placebo at high-dose (geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.91-4.41; p < 0.0001) and low-dose (GLSM ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.11-3.24; p < 0.0001). RBT-1 was generally well tolerated by patients. The primary drug-related adverse event was dose-dependent photosensitivity, observed in 12 (26%) of 46 patients treated with high-dose RBT-1 and in six (13%) of 45 patients treated with low-dose RBT-1 (safety population). Interpretation: RBT-1 demonstrated a statistically significant cytoprotective preconditioning response and a manageable safety profile. Further research is needed. A phase 3 trial is planned. Funding: Renibus Therapeutics, Inc.

Health economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in the treatment of patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.

AIMS: In the COMPASS trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg once daily (od) performed better than ASA 100 mg od alone in reducing the rate of cardiovascular disease, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus ASA vs. ASA alone over a lifetime horizon, from the UK National Health System perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The base case analysis assumed that patients entered the model in the event-free health state, with the possibility to experience ≤2 events, transitioning every three-month cycle, through acute and post-acute health states of MI, ischaemic stroke (IS), or intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and death. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years-all discounted at 3.5%-and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, as well as scenario analyses. In the model, patients on rivaroxaban plus ASA lived for an average of 14.0 years with no IS/MI/ICH, and gained 9.7 QALYs at a cost of £13 947, while those receiving ASA alone lived for an average of 12.7 years and gained 9.3 QALYs at a cost of £8126. The ICER was £16 360 per QALY. This treatment was cost-effective in 98% of 5000 iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This Markov model suggests that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus ASA is a cost-effective alternative to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD.

Rivaroxaban, Aspirin, or Both to Prevent Early Coronary Bypass Graft Occlusion: The COMPASS-CABG Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are at risk for early graft failure, which is associated with a risk of myocardial infarction and death. In the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone did not significantly reduce MACE. OBJECTIVES: This pre-planned substudy sought to determine whether the COMPASS treatments are more effective than aspirin alone for preventing graft failure and MACE after CABG surgery. METHODS: The substudy randomized 1,448 COMPASS trial patients 4 to 14 days after CABG surgery to receive the combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban alone, or aspirin alone. The primary outcome was graft failure, diagnosed by computed tomography angiogram 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and the regimen of rivaroxaban alone did not reduce the graft failure rates compared with aspirin alone (combination vs. aspirin: 113 [9.1%] vs. 91 [8.0%] failed grafts; odds ratio [OR]: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.57; p = 0.45; rivaroxaban alone vs. aspirin: 92 [7.8%] vs. 92 [8.0%] failed grafts; OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.33; p = 0.75). Compared with aspirin, the combination was associated with fewer MACE (12 [2.4%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.47; p = 0.34), whereas rivaroxaban alone was not (16 [3.3%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; HR: 0.99, CI: 0.50 to 1.99; p = 0.98). There was no fatal bleeding or tamponade within 30 days of randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone compared with aspirin alone did not reduce graft failure in patients with recent CABG surgery, but the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin was associated with similar reductions in MACE, as observed in the larger COMPASS trial. (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS [COMPASS]; NCT01776424).

The cost implications of an early versus delayed invasive strategy in Acute Coronary Syndromes: the TIMACS study.

BACKGROUND: The Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes (TIMACS) trial demonstrated that early invasive intervention (within 24 hours) was similar to a delayed approach (after 36 hours) overall but improved outcomes were seen in patients at high risk. However, the cost implications of an early versus delayed invasive strategy are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A third-party perspective of direct cost was chosen and United States Medicare costs were calculated using average diagnosis related grouping (DRG) units. Direct medical costs included those of the index hospitalization (including clinical, procedural and hospital stay costs) as well as major adverse cardiac events during 6 months of follow-up. Sensitivity and sub-group analyses were performed. The average total cost per patient in the early intervention group was lower compared with the delayed intervention group (-$1170; 95% CI -$2542 to $202). From the bootstrap analysis (5000 replications), the early invasive approach was associated with both lower costs and better clinical outcomes regarding death/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke in 95.1% of the cases (dominant strategy). In high-risk patients (GRACE score ≥141), the net reduction in cost was greatest (-$3720; 95% CI -$6270 to -$1170). Bootstrap analysis revealed 99.8% of cases were associated with both lower costs and better clinical outcomes (death/MI/stroke). LIMITATIONS: We were unable to evaluate the effect of community care and investigations without hospitalization (office visits, non-invasive testing, etc). Medication costs were not captured. Indirect costs such as loss of productivity and family care were not included. CONCLUSIONS: An early invasive management strategy is as effective as a delayed approach and is likely to be less costly in most patients with acute coronary syndromes.