4.5 Article

A randomized, partially blinded, multicenter, active-controlled, dose-ranging study assessing the safety, efficacy, and pharmacodynamics of the REG1 anticoagulation system in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Design and rationale of the RADAR Phase IIb trial

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 161, 期 2, 页码 261-U419

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.022

关键词

-

资金

  1. Regado Biosciences (Basking Ridge, NJ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anticoagulants are the cornerstone of current acute coronary syndrome (ACS) therapy; however, anticoagulation regimens that aggressively reduce ischemic events are almost uniformly associated with more bleeding. REG1, an anticoagulation system, consists of RB006 (pegnivacogin), an RNA oligonucleotide factor IXa inhibitor, and RB007 (anivamersen), its complementary controlling agent. Phase I and IIa studies defined predictable relationships between doses of RB006, RB007, and degree of antifactor IX activity. The efficacy and safety of REG1 for the treatment of patients with ACS managed invasively and the safety of reversing RB006 with RB007 after cardiac catheterization are unknown. Randomized, partially-blinded, multicenter, active-controlled, dose-ranging study assessing the safety, efficacy, and pharmacodynamics of the REG1 anticoagulation system compared to unfractionated heparin or low molecular heparin in subjects with acute coronary syndrome (RADAR) is designed to assess both the efficacy of the anticoagulant RB006 and the safety of a range of levels of RB006 reversal with RB007. The objectives of RADAR are (1) to determine the safety of a range of levels of RB006 reversal with RB007 after catheterization, (2) to confirm whether a dose of 1 mg/kg RB006 results in near-complete inhibition of factor IXa in patients with ACS, and (3) to assess the efficacy of RB006 as an anticoagulant in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (Am Heart J 2011;161:261-268.e2.)

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

4.5
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