4.7 Article

Edoxaban vs. warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation on amiodarone: a subgroup analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 36, 期 33, 页码 2239-2245

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv201

关键词

Edoxaban; Anticoagulation; Amiodarone; Atrial fibrillation

资金

  1. Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, the higher-dose edoxaban (HDE) regimen had a similar incidence of ischaemic stroke compared with warfarin, whereas a higher incidence was observed with the lower-dose regimen (LDE). Amiodarone increases edoxaban plasma levels via P-glycoprotein inhibition. The current pre-specified exploratory analysis was performed to determine the effect of amiodarone on the relative efficacy and safety profile of edoxaban. Methods and results At randomization, 2492 patients (11.8%) were receiving amiodarone. The primary efficacy endpoint of stroke or systemic embolic event was significantly lower with LDE compared with warfarin in amiodarone treated patients vs. patients not on amiodarone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.36-0.99 and HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40, respectively; P interaction < 0.01). In patients randomized to HDE, no such interaction for efficacy was observed (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.17 vs. HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05, P interaction = 0.446). Major bleeding was similar in patients on LDE (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59 vs. HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.61, P interaction = 0.131) and HDE (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.38 vs. HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.90, P interaction = 0.392) when compared with warfarin, independent of amiodarone use. Conclusions Patients randomized to the LDE treated with amiodarone at the time of randomization demonstrated a significant reduction in ischaemic events vs. warfarin when compared with those not on amiodarone, while preserving a favourable bleeding profile. In contrast, amiodarone had no effect on the relative efficacy and safety of HDE.

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

4.7
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