4.8 Article

Edoxaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Journal

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 369, Issue 22, Pages 2093-2104

Publisher

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development
  2. Daiichi Sankyo
  3. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  4. Merck
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  6. Sanofi
  7. Johnson Johnson
  8. AstraZeneca
  9. Boehringer Ingelheim
  10. Genzyme
  11. Amorcyte
  12. Medicines Company
  13. Cardiorentis
  14. Eli Lilly
  15. Menarini
  16. Medscape
  17. Bayer HealthCare
  18. GlaxoSmithKline
  19. Beckman Coulter
  20. Roche Diagnostics
  21. Pfizer
  22. Eisai
  23. Arena Pharmaceuticals
  24. Aegerion
  25. AngelMed
  26. Xoma
  27. ICON Clinical Research
  28. Boston Clinical Research Institute
  29. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  30. Biotronik
  31. Boston Scientific
  32. Medtronic
  33. Cardio-Insight
  34. ChanRx
  35. Portola Pharmaceuticals
  36. Janssen Scientific Affairs
  37. Pozen
  38. Coherex Medical
  39. Gilead
  40. MRC [G0800777] Funding Source: UKRI
  41. Medical Research Council [G0800777] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundEdoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. ResultsThe annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). ConclusionsBoth once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available