Efficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: insights from ENGAGE AF‐TIMI 48. (28th June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Magnani, Giulia; Giugliano, Robert P.; Ruff, Christian T.; Murphy, Sabina A.; Nordio, Francesco; Metra, Marco; Moccetti, Tiziano; Mitrovic, Veselin; Shi, Minggao; Mercuri, Michele; Antman, Elliott M.; Braunwald, Eugene
• Is Part Of: European journal of heart failure. Volume 18:Number 9(2016)
• Page Start: 1153
• Page End: 1161
• Publication Date: 2016-06-28
• Subjects: Atrial fibrillation -- Heart failure -- Thromboembolic risk prevention -- Anticoagulation management -- New oral anticoagulants -- Edoxaban; Heart failure -- Periodicals; Heart Failure -- Periodicals; Insuffisance cardiaque -- Périodiques; Heart failure; Periodicals; 616.129005
• DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.595
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1388-9842

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: In the ENGAGE AF‐TIMI 48 trial, edoxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, was not found to be inferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolic events (SEE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and was associated with significantly less bleeding. The higher‐dose edoxaban regimen (HDER; 60 mg dose‐reduced to 30 mg once daily) has been approved in various countries in Europe, the USA, and Japan. Among patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), symptomatic heart failure (HF) is an independent risk factor for lower time‐in‐therapeutic range, which reduces the efficacy and safety of VKA therapy. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with warfarin across the spectrum of HF severity in the ENGAGE AF‐TIMI 48 trial. Methods and results: Of 14 071 patients randomized to well‐controlled warfarin or the HDER, 5926 (42%) had no history of HF, 6344 (45%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I–II, and 1801 (13%) were in NYHA class III–IV. The efficacy of edoxaban compared with warfarin in preventing stroke/SEE was similar in patients without and with HF regardless of the severity of HF; [HDER vs. warfarin: No‐HF: hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–1.11; NYHA class I–II: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69–1.12; NYHA class III–IV: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55–1.25; P interaction = 0.97]. Compared with warfarin, HDER was consistently associated with lower risk of major bleeding (No‐HF: HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68–0.99; NYHA class I–II: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.96; NYHA class III–IV: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54–1.17; P interaction = 0.96). Conclusion: The relative efficacy and safety of HDER compared with well‐managed warfarin in AF patients with HF were similar to those without HF.