Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston MA.
Am Heart J. 2021 May;235:132-139. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2021.01.013. Epub 2021 Jan 22.
The efficacy and safety of the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban compared to warfarin stratified by CHADSVASc scores have not been described.
The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to once-daily edoxaban or warfarin. We classified patients based on CHADSVASc score and compared pharmacokinetics (edoxaban concentration), pharmacodynamics (anti-factor Xa [FXa] with edoxaban, time-in-therapeutic range for warfarin), efficacy (stroke or systemic embolism [SSE]), safety (major bleeding [MB], intracranial hemorrhage), and cardiovascular mortality, for the approved edoxaban regimen vs warfarin.
The distribution CHADSVASc score were:≤3, N = 4159 (29.6%); 4, N = 4066 (28.9%); 5, N = 3165 (22.5%); and ≥6, N = 2681 (19.1%). Increasing rates of SSE (1.05 to 2.99%/year) and MB (2.27 to 4.66%/year) were observed in the warfarin arm as the CHADSVASc score increased. The hazard ratios per unit increase of CHADSVASc score were 1.29 (1.21-1.38) and 1.26 (1.17-1.36) for SSE, and 1.20 (1.13-1.27) and 1.19 (1.12-1.27) for MB, with warfarin and edoxaban, respectively. Time-in-therapeutic range in warfarin-treated patients was similar and high (median 68%-69%) across CHADSVASc scores, whereas edoxaban trough concentration, exogenous anti-FXa activity and %inhibition of endogenous FXa were higher at increasing CHADSVASc scores. Edoxaban reduced SSE, MB, intracranial hemorrhage, and cardiovascular mortality vs warfarin to a similar degree across the range of CHADSVASc scores (P-int = 0.90, 0.96, 0.21, and 0.37, respectively). Because of higher event rates the number of events prevented with edoxaban tended to be greater in patients with higher CHADSVASc scores.
The benefit and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin is maintained across CHADSVASc scores. While the relative risk reductions remain similar, edoxaban provides incrementally larger absolute reductions in outcomes over warfarin in patients with higher CHADSVASc scores.
尚未描述口服因子 Xa 抑制剂依度沙班与华法林分层的 CHADSVASc 评分的疗效和安全性。
ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 试验将房颤患者随机分配至每日一次依度沙班或华法林治疗。我们根据 CHADSVASc 评分对患者进行分类,并比较了药代动力学(依度沙班浓度)、药效学(依度沙班抗因子 Xa [FXa],华法林治疗范围内的时间)、疗效(中风或全身性栓塞 [SSE])、安全性(主要出血 [MB],颅内出血)和心血管死亡率,用于批准的依度沙班方案与华法林。
CHADSVASc 评分的分布为:≤3,N = 4159(29.6%);4,N = 4066(28.9%);5,N = 3165(22.5%);≥6,N = 2681(19.1%)。随着 CHADSVASc 评分的升高,华法林组的 SSE(1.05-2.99%/年)和 MB(2.27-4.66%/年)的发生率呈上升趋势。CHADSVASc 评分每增加一个单位的风险比为 1.29(1.21-1.38)和 1.26(1.17-1.36),用于 SSE,1.20(1.13-1.27)和 1.19(1.12-1.27)用于 MB,分别与华法林和依度沙班相关。华法林治疗患者的治疗范围内时间相似且较高(中位数 68%-69%),而依度沙班谷浓度、外源性抗 FXa 活性和内源性 FXa 抑制率随 CHADSVASc 评分的升高而升高。与华法林相比,依度沙班降低 SSE、MB、颅内出血和心血管死亡率的程度相似,横跨 CHADSVASc 评分范围(P-int = 0.90、0.96、0.21 和 0.37,分别)。由于事件发生率较高,依度沙班在 CHADSVASc 评分较高的患者中预防的事件数量趋于增加。
依度沙班与华法林相比,在 CHADSVASc 评分范围内的疗效和安全性保持一致。虽然相对风险降低仍然相似,但与华法林相比,依度沙班在 CHADSVASc 评分较高的患者中提供了更大的绝对降低幅度。