Journal
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 369, Issue 22, Pages 2093-2104Publisher
MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development
- Daiichi Sankyo
- Janssen Pharmaceuticals
- Merck
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Sanofi
- Johnson Johnson
- AstraZeneca
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Genzyme
- Amorcyte
- Medicines Company
- Cardiorentis
- Eli Lilly
- Menarini
- Medscape
- Bayer HealthCare
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Beckman Coulter
- Roche Diagnostics
- Pfizer
- Eisai
- Arena Pharmaceuticals
- Aegerion
- AngelMed
- Xoma
- ICON Clinical Research
- Boston Clinical Research Institute
- Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals
- Biotronik
- Boston Scientific
- Medtronic
- Cardio-Insight
- ChanRx
- Portola Pharmaceuticals
- Janssen Scientific Affairs
- Pozen
- Coherex Medical
- Gilead
- MRC [G0800777] Funding Source: UKRI
- 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
Recommended
No Data Available