An adaptive-design dose-ranging study of PD 0348292, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, for thromboprophylaxis after total knee replacement surgery

Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding

Since the middle of the 20th century, oncology's dose-finding paradigm has been oriented toward identifying a drug's maximum tolerated dose, which is then carried forward into phase 2 and 3 trials and clinical practice. For most modern precision medicines, however, maximum tolerated dose is far greater than the minimum dose needed to achieve maximal benefit, leading to unnecessary side effects. Regulatory change may decrease maximum tolerated dose's predominance by enforcing dose optimization of new drugs. Dozens of already approved cancer drugs require re-evaluation, however, introducing a new methodologic and ethical challenge in cancer clinical trials. In this article, we assess the history and current landscape of cancer drug dose finding. We provide a set of strategic priorities for postapproval dose optimization trials of the future. We discuss ethical considerations for postapproval dose optimization trial design and review three major design strategies for these unique trials that would both adhere to ethical standards and benefit patients and funders. We close with a discussion of financial and reporting considerations in the realm of dose optimization. Taken together, we provide a comprehensive, bird's eye view of the postapproval dose optimization trial landscape and offer our thoughts on the next steps required of methodologies and regulatory and funding regimes.

Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice.

OBJECTIVE

These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis.

Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice.

OBJECTIVE

These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;▪:1-31).

Ranking the efficacy of anticoagulants for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulants are essential in the prevention of venous thromboembolism. However, the effectiveness and safety of different anticoagulants have always been controversial. Therefore, we aimed to expand the sample of anticoagulant results and rank the efficacy and safety of 19 anticoagulants in the prevention of venous thromboembolism when total knee or total hip arthroplasty procedure is performed.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials of adult patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty were conducted. The trials were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, in which anticoagulants were used as interventions randomized controlled trial. The incidence of venous embolism and bleeding are the key outcomes of assessing the efficacy of intervention drugs. We used the Physical Therapy Evidence Database (PEDro) to assess risk bias and used pairwise comparison and network meta-analysis with random effects to estimate the summary relative risk. The study has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020200747.

RESULTS

From the 4083 identified manuscripts, 45,067 participants from 53 randomized trials were included in the analysis and randomly assigned to 19 anticoagulants. With Enoxaparin as a control, Rivaroxaban (risk difference 0.07, 95 % credible interval 0.06 to 0.08), Edoxaban (RD 0.09, 95 % CrI 0.08 to 0.11), and Apixaban (RD 0.05, 95 % CrI 0.04 to 0.06) had the best effect in preventing VTE. However, in terms of comprehensive bleeding rate, Apixaban, Edoxaban, and Darexaban were the most effective and stable. Although effective in preventing VTE, bleeding remains relatively high in Rivaroxaban. Enoxaparin is low-molecular-weight heparin that is widely used in clinics, and although its overall efficacy is not the best, its efficacy and safety are very stable.

CONCLUSION

According to the available data, Apixaban, Edoxaban, and Darexaban are better than any anticoagulants in the prevention of VTE and bleeding during total knee or total hip arthroplasty. In our study, Fondaparinux, Eribaxaban, Dalteparin, Betrixaban, Bemiparin, Reviparin, Acenocoumarol, and Tinzaparin were scarce in the included studies, therefore, more evidence is needed to prove their efficacy and safety.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for ischemic stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates due to thromboembolic complications, and anticoagulation is central to the management of this common arrhythmia to prevent acute thromboembolic events. The traditional anticoagulants: heparin, fondaparinux, and vitamin K antagonists (VKA, e.g. warfarin, acenocoumarol or phenprocoumin) have long served as pharmacotherapy for ischemic stroke prophylaxis. Areas covered: In this review article, the authors provide an overview on current and emerging pharmacotherapy for ischemic stroke prevention. Furthermore, they review the data from novel therapeutic targets in the coagulation cascade, and investigational anticoagulant drugs currently assessed in preclinical and clinical studies. Expert opinion: The introduction of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) was an important milestone, as these drugs show relative efficacy, safety, and convenience compared to the VKAs. Nevertheless, their clinical use still has some limitations with, for example, patients with severe renal impairment and those with mechanical heart valves, high bleeding risks, lack of standard laboratory monitoring and (some) reversal agents. To overcome some of these limitations, various attempts are now underway to discover new strategies and targets via the hemostatic pathway in order to develop new coagulation inhibiting drugs.

Practical characteristics of adaptive design in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Adaptive design methods are expected to be ethical, reflect real medical practice, increase the likelihood of research and development success and reduce the allocation of patients into ineffective treatment groups by the early termination of clinical trials. However, the comprehensive details regarding which types of clinical trials will include adaptive designs remain unclear. We examined the practical characteristics of adaptive design used in clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of adaptive design clinical trials published from 2012 to 2015 using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with common search terms related to adaptive design. We systematically assessed the types and characteristics of adaptive designs and disease areas employed in the adaptive design trials.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our survey identified 245 adaptive design clinical trials. The number of trials by the publication year increased from 2012 to 2013 and did not greatly change afterwards. The most frequently used adaptive design was group sequential design (n = 222, 90.6%), especially for neoplasm or cardiovascular disease trials. Among the other types of adaptive design, adaptive dose/treatment group selection (n = 21, 8.6%) and adaptive sample-size adjustment (n = 19, 7.8%) were frequently used. The adaptive randomization (n = 8, 3.3%) and adaptive seamless design (n = 6, 2.4%) were less frequent. Adaptive dose/treatment group selection and adaptive sample-size adjustment were frequently used (up to 23%) in "certain infectious and parasitic diseases," "diseases of nervous system," and "mental and behavioural disorders" in comparison with "neoplasms" (<6.6%). For "mental and behavioural disorders," adaptive randomization was used in two trials of eight trials in total (25%). Group sequential design and adaptive sample-size adjustment were used frequently in phase 3 trials or in trials where study phase was not specified, whereas the other types of adaptive designs were used more in phase 2 trials. Approximately 82% (202 of 245 trials) resulted in early termination at the interim analysis. Among the 202 trials, 132 (54% of 245 trials) had fewer randomized patients than initially planned. This result supports the motive to use adaptive design to make study durations shorter and include a smaller number of subjects.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

We found that adaptive designs have been applied to clinical trials in various therapeutic areas and interventions. The applications were frequently reported in neoplasm or cardiovascular clinical trials. The adaptive dose/treatment group selection and sample-size adjustment are increasingly common, and these adaptations generally follow the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) recommendations.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Vs. Enoxaparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism Following Orthopedic Surgery: A Dose-Response Meta-analysis

We carried out a dose–response model‐based meta‐analysis to assess venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding with factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) and a thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran) compared with European (EU) (40 mg q.d.) and North American (NA) (30 mg Q12H) dose regimens of a low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) following orthopedic surgery. Statistically significant differences in both VTE and bleeding outcomes were found between the NA and EU doses of enoxaparin, with odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for the NA vs. EU dose of 0.73 (0.71–0.76) and 1.20 (1.14–1.29) for total VTE and major bleeding, respectively. At approved doses, estimated odds ratios vs. both doses of enoxaparin for the three FXa inhibitors (range: 0.35–0.75 for VTE; 0.76–1.09 for bleeding) compared with those for dabigatran (range: 0.66–1.21 for VTE; 1.10–1.38 for bleeding) suggested generally greater efficacy and less bleeding for the FXa inhibitors.

Comparative effectiveness of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis options for the patient undergoing total hip and knee replacement: a network meta-analysis

Essentials Despite trial data, guidelines have not endorsed direct oral Xa inhibitors above other options. We provide profiles of venous thromboembolism and hemorrhage risk for 12 options. Direct oral Xa inhibitors had a favorable profile compared with low-molecular-weight heparin. Other options did not have favorable profiles compared with low-molecular-weight heparin.

SUMMARY

Background There are numerous trials and several meta-analyses comparing venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis options after total hip and knee replacement (THR and TKR). None have included simultaneous comparison of new with older options. Objective To measure simultaneously the relative risk of VTE and hemorrhage for 12 prophylaxis options. Methods We abstracted VTE and hemorrhage information from randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and June 2016 comparing 12 prophylaxis options. We then constructed networks to compute the relative risk for each option, relative to once-daily dosing with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) Low. Results Main: Relative to LMWH Low, direct oral Xa inhibitors had the lowest risk of total deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-asymptomatic and symptomatic- (odds ratio [OR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.57), translating to 53-139 fewer DVTs per 1000 patients. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) titrated to International Normalized Ratio [INR] 2-3 predicted 56% more DVT events (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.14-2.14). Aspirin performed similarly (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.34-1.86), although small numbers prohibit firm conclusions. Direct oral Xa inhibitors did not lead to significantly more bleeding (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.79-1.90). Secondary: Relative to LMWH Low, direct oral Xa inhibitors prevented 4-fold more symptomatic DVTs (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47). Conclusions Relative to LMWH Low, direct oral Xa inhibitors had a more favorable profile of VTE and hemorrhage risk, whereas VKAs had a less favorable profile. The profile of other agents was not more or less favorable. Clinicians should consider these profiles when selecting prophylaxis options.

Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of novel 2,3-dihydroquinazolin- 4(1H)-one derivatives as potential fXa inhibitors

Coagulation factor Xa (fXa) is a particularly attractive target for the development of effective and safe anticoagulants. In this study, novel 2,3-dihydroquinazolin-4(1H)-one derivatives were designed as potential fXa inhibitors based on anthranilamide structure which has been reported in our previous research. The experimental data showed that most of the designed compounds exhibited significant in vitro potency against fXa. Among them, compound 8e displayed the strongest potency against fXa with the IC₅₀ value of 21 nM and highly selectivity versus thrombin (IC₅₀ = 67 μM) and excellent in vitro antithrombotic activity with its 2 × PT value of 1.2 μM and 2 × aPTT value of 0.6 μM. In addition, 8e also displayed excellent in vivo antithrombotic activity in the rat arteriovenous shunt (AV-SHUNT) model. The bleeding risk evaluation showed that 8e had a similar safety profile as that of betrixaban. All results demonstrated that compound 8e could be considered as a potential fXa inhibitor for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases.

Improving clinical trials for cardiovascular diseases: a position paper from the Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology

AIMS

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in the world, but the pharmaceutical industry's willingness to invest in this field has declined because of the many challenges involved with bringing new cardiovascular drugs to market, including late-stage failures, escalating regulatory requirements, bureaucracy of the clinical trial business enterprise, and limited patient access after approval. This contrasts with the remaining burden of cardiovascular disease in Europe and in the world. Thus, clinical cardiovascular research needs to adapt to address the impact of these challenges in order to ensure development of new cardiovascular medicines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The present paper is the outcome of a two-day workshop held by the Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology. We propose strategies to improve development of effective new cardiovascular therapies. These can include (i) the use of biomarkers to describe patients who will benefit from new therapies more precisely, achieving better human target validation; (ii) targeted, mechanism-based approaches to drug development for defined populations; (iii) the use of information technology to simplify data collection and follow-up in clinical trials; (iv) streamlining adverse event collection and reducing monitoring; (v) extended patent protection or limited rapid approval of new agents to motivate investment in early phase development; and (vi) collecting data needed for health technology assessment continuously throughout the drug development process (before and after approval) to minimize delays in patient access. Collaboration across industry, academia, regulators, and payers will be necessary to enact change and to unlock the existing potential for cardiovascular clinical drug development.

CONCLUSIONS

A coordinated effort involving academia, regulators, industry, and payors will help to foster better and more effective conduct of clinical cardiovascular trials, supporting earlier availability of innovative therapies and better management of cardiovascular diseases.