Comparison of idrabiotaparinux with vitamin K antagonists for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Borealis-Atrial Fibrillation Study

BACKGROUND

Idrabiotaparinux, a long-acting inhibitor of factor Xa, was shown to be effective in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVE

To assess non-inferiority for the efficacy of idrabiotaparinux versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at risk of stroke and systemic embolism. Bleeding was also assessed.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind trial enrolled patients with electrocardiogram-documented AF. Idrabiotaparinux was administered weekly via subcutaneous injection, and warfarin was administered daily with dose adjustment to maintain the international normalized ratio between 2.0 and 3.0. Each idrabiotaparinux injection was 3 mg for the first 7 weeks, followed by 2 mg thereafter, except in patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL min(-1) or aged ≥ 75 years. The patients received 1.5 mg after the first 7 weeks. The efficacy outcome was the composite of all fatal or non-fatal strokes and systemic embolism. The safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding (major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding).

RESULTS

The study was terminated prematurely by the sponsor for strategic/commercial, not scientific, reasons, with 39% of the planned number of patients included and an average duration of treatment of 240 days. Of the 1886 idrabiotaparinux recipients, 20 developed stroke or systemic embolism (1.5% per year), whereas this occurred in 22 of the 1887 warfarin patients (1.6% per year, hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.66). The annual incidence of bleeding was 6.1% in the idrabiotaparinux and 10.0% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.81).

CONCLUSION

If anything, despite its early termination, the idrabiotaparinux regimen studied suggested a comparable efficacy to dose-adjusted warfarin, with a lower bleeding risk.

Recent pharmacological advances for treating venous thromboembolism: are we witnessing the demise of warfarin?

Vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, have been the mainstay in treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism. However, warfarin has many disadvantages including a narrow therapeutic window, numerous potential drug interactions, modulation of effect by alcohol and foods containing vitamin K and genetic variation in metabolism of warfarin, all of which contribute to the unpredictability of therapy. This has provided the impetus for developing new oral anticoagulants with a rapid onset of action, wide therapeutic window, predictable and reversible action, with few drug or dietary interactions, no requirement for routine coagulation monitoring or dose adjustment and acceptable cost. No single agent incorporates all these characteristics, but new factor Xa and direct thrombin inhibitors are being introduced into clinical practice that fulfil some of these aims. Here, we briefly discuss the current practice with its limitations and pitfalls, and then review important trials that have launched new oral anticoagulants into clinical practice.

Bioequipotency of idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux after once weekly dosing in healthy volunteers and patients treated for acute deep vein thrombosis

AIM

To assess the bioequipotency of equimolar doses of idraparinux (2.5 mg) and idrabiotaparinux (3.0 mg).

METHOD

In a phase I study, 48 healthy male volunteers were randomized to a single subcutaneous injection of idrabiotaparinux or idraparinux, followed by plasma sampling over 27 days. In a prospective substudy of the phase III EQUINOX trial, 228 patients treated for acute symptomatic deep vein thrombosis received idrabiotaparinux or idraparinux once weekly for 6 months. Plasma sampling was performed within 5 days following the last injection. The primary pharmacodynamic endpoint was the inhibition of activated factor X (FXa) activity. Maximal anti-FXa activity (Amax) and area under anti-FXa activity vs. time curve (AAUC) were calculated. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

In both studies, pharmacodynamic anti-FXa vs. time profiles of idrabiotaparinux and idraparinux were superimposable. Ratio estimates (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) for idrabiotaparinux : idraparinux were 0.96 (0.89, 1.04) for Amax and 0.95 (0.87, 1.04) for AAUC in the phase I study, and 1.11 (1.00, 1.22) for Amax and 1.06 (0.96, 1.16) for AAUC at month 6 in the EQUINOX substudy. Idrabiotaparinux and idraparinux were considered bioequipotent because 90% CIs were within the pre-specified interval (0.80, 1.25). Study treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacodynamic parameters reported after single dose in healthy volunteers and after repeated once weekly dosing in patients demonstrated the bioequipotency of idrabiotaparinux and idraparinux based on FXa inhibition. These outcomes support the use of an idrabiotaparinux dose bioequipotent to an idraparinux dose in large clinical trials, and the possibility to substitute idrabiotaparinux to idraparinux for the treatment of venous thromboembolism.