Edoxaban: pharmacological principles, preclinical and early-phase clinical testing

Biopharmaceutics considerations for direct oral anticoagulants

Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been clinically used in the treatment of coagulation disorders. There are four DOACs approved since 2010 (dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and they were designed to overcome the practical limitations of VKA. This review summarized biopharmaceutics considerations about DOACs, which are critically discussed, applying risk analyses to subside the further classification of these drugs according to the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS). These discussions included data compiled about physicochemical properties, equilibrium solubility, permeability, and drug dissolution of DOACs. From the biopharmaceutics characteristics is possible to identify critical variables related to the absorption process, which can help in the design of new formulations. The data were compared with the criteria recommended by regulatory agencies for the biopharmaceutics classification according to the BCS. From that, these data may be used to discuss the approval of generic medicines by the BCS-based biowaiver, and the clinical risks arising from novel formulations with DOACs. However, although there are indications of biopharmaceutics classifications for DOACs, conclusive information to classify these compounds according to the BCS is lacking, requiring more experimental studies to achieve this aim. Conclusive information is essential for a safe decision about the biowaiver, as well as to guide the development of new formulations containing the DOACs.

New factor Xa inhibitors based on 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinoline developed by molecular modelling

Factor Xa is a serine protease representing a crucial element in the coagulation process and an attractive target for anticoagulant therapy. At the present time there are several chemical classes of factor Xa inhibitors with proven activity. Furthermore, three factor Xa inhibitors have been approved for the medical use to date. However, therapy with these medications is accompanied by substantial adverse effects. In this background, the structure-based computational approach combining molecular docking and semiempirical quantum chemical calculations was applied for a search for new effective factor Xa inhibitors. We have undertaken a few virtual screening procedures to select potential candidates for synthesis and subsequent testing. The first screen of the focused library resulted in identifying 20 compounds among which 7 compounds showed the noticeable inhibition of factor Xa at maximal concentrations, allowed by solubility. The subsequent additional screens identified 20 additional candidates. Of these, 5 substances were shown to be capable of inhibiting factor Xa at 5 μM. The best two found 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinoline derivatives identified by means of modelling have demonstrated IC50 values in the micromolar range. One of them turned out to be selective factor Xa inhibitor over trypsin, factors IIa, IXa and XIa.

Factor Xa inhibitors versus vitamin K antagonists for preventing cerebral or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Factor Xa inhibitors and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are now recommended in treatment guidelines for preventing stroke and systemic embolic events in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral or systemic embolic events in people with AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Heart Group (September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (August 2017), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017), and Embase (1980 to April 2017). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies, authors and sponsors of relevant published trials. We used outcome data from marketing authorisation applications of apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban that were submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the USA.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared the effects of long-term treatment (lasting more than four weeks) with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral and systemic embolism in people with AF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary efficacy outcome was the composite endpoint of all strokes and systemic embolic events. Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the trials and the risk of bias. We calculated a weighted estimate of the typical treatment effect across trials using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by means of a fixed-effect model. In case of moderate or high heterogeneity of treatment effects, we used a random-effects model to compare the overall treatment effects. We also performed a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding any open-label studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from 67,688 participants randomised into 13 RCTs. The included trials directly compared dose-adjusted warfarin with either apixaban, betrixaban, darexaban, edoxaban, idraparinux, idrabiotaparinux, or rivaroxaban. The majority of the included data (approximately 90%) was from apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.The composite primary efficacy endpoint of all strokes (both ischaemic and haemorrhagic) and non-central nervous systemic embolic events was reported in all of the included studies. Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with dose-adjusted warfarin in participants with AF (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; 13 studies; 67,477 participants; high-quality evidence).Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84; 13 studies; 67,396 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was, however, statistically significant and high heterogeneity (I2 = 83%). When we repeated this analysis using a random-effects model, it did not show a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17). A pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding all open-label studies showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81), but high heterogeneity was also observed in this analysis (I2 = 72%). The same sensitivity analysis using a random-effects model also showed a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings in participants treated with factor Xa inhibitors (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96).Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the risk of intracranial haemorrhages (ICHs) compared with warfarin (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 12 studies; 66,259 participants; high-quality evidence). We observed moderate, but statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 55%). The pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding open-label studies showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of ICHs compared with warfarin (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.56), with low, non-statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 27%).Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor also significantly reduced the number of all-cause deaths compared with warfarin (OR 0.89, 95% 0.83 to 0.95; 10 studies; 65,624 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with factor Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with warfarin in people with AF. The absolute effect of factor Xa inhibitors compared with warfarin treatment was, however, rather small. Factor Xa inhibitors also reduced the number of ICHs, all-cause deaths and major bleedings compared with warfarin, although the evidence for a reduction in the latter is less robust.

Edoxaban

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The July 2015 monograph topics are ivabradine, dinutuximab, glycopyrronium bromide/indacaterol, patriromer, and idarucizumab. The Safety MUE is on ivabradine.

Comparison of the phase III clinical trial designs of novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin for the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: implications for clinical practice

Although vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been the backbone of thromboprophylaxis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, their limitations have encouraged the development of a new generation of oral anticoagulants. This review compares the different designs and procedures used to conduct four phase III trials that tested dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban versus VKAs. Although pharmacologic characteristics and results of the main trials are briefly discussed, this review mainly focuses on study designs, enrollment criteria, populations studied, quality metrics, and transition strategies between oral anticoagulants. While each of the trials was of high quality, performed independently, and led by independent academic groups, substantial differences exist in terms of drug pharmacology and trial characteristics. Caution is advised when comparing results across trials as practicing clinicians strive to personalize anticoagulation treatments for their individual patients. We believe that the differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the available novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), coupled with substantial heterogeneity in the trial populations and designs and procedures used to conduct the trials, support an important role for each of the NOACs dependent upon the specific clinical scenario faced by the practicing clinician.

Edoxaban

Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) remain the standard therapy for anticoagulation in prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and for the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF). Due to numerous limitations of VKAs, target-specific oral anticoagulants have been developed. Edoxaban is a direct activated factor X inhibitor with attractive features among which are once daily dosing, no need for routine monitoring, and minimal drug–drug interactions. In patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, edoxaban was superior to enoxaparin in preventing VTE. Furthermore, a recent large-scale phase III trial in patients with symptomatic VTE demonstrated that edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin in preventing recurrent VTE and reduced bleeding. In the largest trial of anticoagulation in patients with AF to date, edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin in the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and reduced bleeding and cardiovascular mortality. This review provides an overview of the pharmacology, clinical trial results, and potential indications for edoxaban.

Factor Xa inhibitors versus vitamin K antagonists for preventing cerebral or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulant treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is aimed at preventing thromboembolic complications and has been the therapy of choice for most people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) for many decades. A new class of anticoagulants, the factor Xa inhibitors, appear to have several pharmacological and practical advantages over VKAs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for the prevention of cerebral or systemic embolic events in people with AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Heart Group (June 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to April 2013). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched trials registers and Google Scholar (July 2012). We also screened reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies, authors and sponsors of relevant published trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that directly compared the effects of long-term treatment (more than four weeks) with factor Xa inhibitors and VKAs for the prevention of cerebral and systemic embolism in patients with AF. We included patients with and without a previous stroke or TIA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary efficacy outcome was the composite endpoint of all strokes and other systemic embolic events. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and the risk of bias, and extracted data. We calculated a weighted estimate of the typical treatment effect across trials using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by means of a fixed-effect model. However, in the case of moderate or high heterogeneity of treatment effects, we used a random-effects model to compare the overall treatment effects and performed a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding any fully open-label studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from 42,084 participants randomised into 10 trials. All participants had a confirmed diagnosis of AF (or atrial flutter) and were deemed by the randomising physician to be eligible for long-term anticoagulant treatment with a VKA (warfarin) with a target International Normalised Ratio (INR) of 2.0 to 3.0 in most patients. The included trials directly compared dose-adjusted warfarin with either apixaban, betrixaban, darexaban, edoxaban, idraparinux or rivaroxaban. Four trials were double-masked, five partially-masked (that is different doses of factor Xa inhibitor administered double-masked and warfarin administered open-label) and one was open-label. Median duration of follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 1.9 years.The composite primary efficacy endpoint of all strokes (both ischaemic and haemorrhagic) and non-central nervous systemic embolic events was reported in nine of the included studies (40,777 participants). Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with dose-adjusted warfarin (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.91). We also analysed both components of this composite endpoint separately: treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased both the number of ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.89) and the number of systemic embolic events (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87).All of the included studies (42,078 participants) reported the number of major bleedings. Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98). There was, however, statistically significant and high heterogeneity (I² = 81%) and an analysis using a random-effects model did not show a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.34). The pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding open-label studies showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) but moderate heterogeneity was still observed (I² = 65%). A similar sensitivity analysis using a random-effects model did not show a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings in patients treated with factor Xa inhibitors (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05). Part of the observed heterogeneity can thus be explained by the increased risk of major bleedings in the factor Xa treatment arm in the single included open-label study, which studied idraparinux. Other heterogeneity might be explained by differences in baseline bleeding risks in the two largest trials of apixaban and rivaroxaban that we included in this review.Data on intracranial haemorrhages (ICHs) were reported in eight studies (39,638 participants). Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the risk of ICH compared with warfarin (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70). Again, we observed statistically significant heterogeneity (I² = 60%). The pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding the open-label study showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of ICHs compared with warfarin (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.64), without any sign of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 0%).The number of patients who died from any cause was reported in six studies (38,924 participants). Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of all-cause deaths compared with warfarin (OR 0.88, 95% 0.81 to 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Factor Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with warfarin in patients with AF. Factor Xa inhibitors also seem to reduce the number of major bleedings and ICHs compared with warfarin, though the evidence for a reduction of major bleedings is somewhat less robust. There is currently no conclusive evidence to determine which factor Xa inhibitor is more effective and safer for long-term anticoagulant treatment of patients with AF as head-to-head studies of the different factor Xa inhibitors have not yet been performed.

The evolution of oral anticoagulant therapy

Before the advent of oral, targeted anticoagulants, physicians had no choice regarding the type of oral anticoagulant prescribed, as every patient received warfarin. The new oral direct thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors give the prescribing physician, as well as the patient, greater choice. Variation in dosing, half-life, elimination, monitoring, and reversal will help the clinician decide on the appropriate anticoagulant for the appropriate patient. Rather than replace warfarin, each anticoagulant will now have a particular niche, and the decision of which agent to prescribe will be determined at the bedside.

Novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: focus on apixaban

Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been challenging over decades, mostly due to a number of difficulties associated with oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), which have been the most effective stroke prevention treatment for a long time. The oral direct thrombin inhibitors (e.g., dabigatran) and oral direct inhibitors of factor Xa (e.g., rivaroxaban, apixaban) have emerged recently as an alternative to VKAs for stroke prevention in AF. These drugs act rapidly, and have a predictable and stable dose-related anticoagulant effect with a few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. The novel oral anticoagulants are used in fixed doses with no need for regular laboratory monitoring of anticoagulation intensity. However, each of these drugs has distinct pharmacological properties that could influence optimal use in clinical practice. The following phase 3 randomized trials with novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin for stroke prevention in AF have been completed: the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulant therapy (RE-LY) trial with dabigatran, the Rivaroxaban Once daily oral direct Factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF) trial with rivaroxaban, and the Apixaban for Reduction of Stroke and Other Thromboembolism Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial with apixaban. Moreover, the Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid to prevent Strokes (AVERROES) trial included patients with AF who have failed or were unsuitable for warfarin, and compared apixaban versus aspirin for stroke prevention in AF. Overall, apixaban has two large trials for stroke prevention in AF showing benefits not only over warfarin, but also over aspirin among those patients who have failed or refused warfarin. In the ARISTOTLE trial, apixaban was superior to warfarin in the reduction of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality, with a similar reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke and better tolerability. When compared with aspirin in the AVERROES trial, apixaban was associated with more effective reduction of stroke, a similar risk of major bleeding, and better tolerability. In this review article, the authors summarize the current knowledge on novel oral anticoagulants and discuss the clinical aspects of their use for stroke prevention in AF, with particular emphasis on apixaban.