4.6 Article

Efficacy and safety of the oral direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. The Botticelli DVT dose-ranging study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 1313-1318

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03054.x

关键词

apixaban; dose-ranging; DVT; human; novel anticoagulant; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Apixaban, an oral potent reversible direct inhibitor of activated factor X, has shown promise in the prevention of venous thromboembolism following major orthopedic surgery. We conducted a dose-ranging study in patients with deep vein thrombosis. Methods: Consecutive patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis were included and randomized to receive 84-91 days of apixaban 5 mg twice-daily, 10 mg twice-daily, or 20 mg once-daily, or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) followed by a vitamin K antagonist (VKA). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism and asymptomatic deterioration of bilateral compression ultrasound or perfusion lung scan. The principal safety outcome was the composite of major and clinically relevant, non-major bleeding. Results: The mean age of the 520 included patients was 59 years, and 62% were male. The primary outcome occurred in 17 of the 358 apixaban-treated patients [4.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-7.5%] and in five of the 118 LMWH/VKA-treated patients (4.2%, 95% CI 1.4-9.6%) who were evaluable. The incidence in all three apixaban groups was low and comparable without evidence of a dose response. The principal safety outcome occurred in 28 (7.3%) of the 385 apixaban-treated patients and in 10 (7.9%) of the 126 LMWH/VKA-treated patients. No dose response for apixaban was observed. Conclusion: These observations warrant further evaluation of apixaban in phase III studies. The attractive fixed-dose regimen of this compound may meet the demand to simplify anticoagulant treatment in patients with established venous thromboembolism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据