Search

Phase II trials of asundexian were underpowered to detect important differences in bleeding. The goal of this study was to obtain best estimates of effects of asundexian vs active control/placebo on major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) and all bleeding, describe most common sites of bleeding, and explore association between asundexian exposure and bleeding. We performed a pooled analysis of 3 phase II trials of asundexian in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or stroke. Bleeding was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) criteria. In patients with AF (n = 755), both asundexian 20 mg and 50 mg once daily vs apixaban had fewer major/CRNM events (3 of 249; incidence rate [IR] per 100 patient-years 5.47 vs 1 of 254 [IR: not calculable] vs 6 of 250 [IR: 11.10]) and all bleeding (12 of 249 [IR: 22.26] vs 10 of 254 [IR: 18.21] vs 26 of 250 [IR: 50.56]). In patients with recent AMI or stroke (n = 3,409), asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, and 50 mg once daily compared with placebo had similar rates of major/CRNM events (44 of 840 [IR: 7.55] vs 42 of 843 [IR: 7.04] vs 56 of 845 [IR: 9.63] vs 41 of 851 [IR: 6.99]) and all bleeding (107 of 840 [IR: 19.57] vs 123 of 843 [IR: 22.45] vs 130 of 845 [IR: 24.19] vs 129 of 851 [IR: 23.84]). Most common sites of major/CRNM bleeding with asundexian were gastrointestinal, respiratory, urogenital, and skin. There was no significant association between asundexian exposure and major/CRNM bleeding. Analyses of phase II trials involving >500 bleeds highlight the potential for improved safety of asundexian compared with apixaban and similar safety compared with placebo. Further evidence on the efficacy of asundexian awaits the results of ongoing phase III trials. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Direct-acting oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is limited by bleeding concerns. Asundexian, a novel, oral small molecule activated coagulation factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitor, might reduce thrombosis with minimal effect on haemostasis. We aimed to determine the optimal dose of asundexian and to compare the incidence of bleeding with that of apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 dose-finding study, we compared asundexian 20 mg or 50 mg once daily with apixaban 5 mg twice daily in patients aged 45 years or older with atrial fibrillation, a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 if male or at least 3 if female, and increased bleeding risk. The study was conducted at 93 sites in 14 countries, including 12 European countries, Canada, and Japan. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to a treatment group using an interactive web response system, with randomisation stratified by whether patients were receiving a direct-acting oral anticoagulant before the study start. Masking was achieved using a double-dummy design, with participants receiving both the assigned treatment and a placebo that resembled the non-assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was the composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, assessed in all patients who took at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04218266, and EudraCT, 2019-002365-35.Findings: Between Jan 30, 2020, and June 21, 2021, 862 patients were enrolled. 755 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. Two patients (assigned to asundexian 20 mg) never took any study medication, resulting in 753 patients being included in the analysis (249 received asundexian 20 mg, 254 received asundexian 50 g, and 250 received apixaban). The mean age of participants was 73·7 years (SD 8·3), 309 (41%) were women, 216 (29%) had chronic kidney disease, and mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3·9 (1·3). Asundexian 20 mg resulted in 81% inhibition of FXIa activity at trough concentrations and 90% inhibition at peak concentrations; asundexian 50 mg resulted in 92% inhibition at trough concentrations and 94% inhibition at peak concentrations. Ratios of incidence proportions for the primary endpoint were 0·50 (90% CI 0·14-1·68) for asundexian 20 mg (three events), 0·16 (0·01-0·99) for asundexian 50 mg (one event), and 0·33 (0·09-0·97) for pooled asundexian (four events) versus apixaban (six events). The rate of any adverse event occurring was similar in the three treatment groups: 118 (47%) with asundexian 20 mg, 120 (47%) with asundexian 50 mg, and 122 (49%) with apixaban.Interpretation: The FXIa inhibitor asundexian at doses of 20 mg and 50 mg once daily resulted in lower rates of bleeding compared with standard dosing of apixaban, with near-complete in-vivo FXIa inhibition, in patients with atrial fibrillation.Funding: Bayer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) lacks effective treatments. Based on preclinical studies, neladenoson bialanate, a first-in-class partial adenosine A1 receptor agonist, has the potential to improve several heart failure-related cardiac and noncardiac abnormalities but has not been evaluated to treat HFpEF.Objectives: To determine whether neladenoson improves exercise capacity, physical activity, cardiac biomarkers, and quality of life in patients with HFpEF and to find the optimal dose.Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b randomized clinical trial conducted at 76 centers in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Patients (N = 305) with New York Heart Association class II or III HFpEF with elevated natriuretic peptide levels were enrolled between May 10, 2017, and December 7, 2017 (date of final follow-up: June 20, 2018).Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:2:2:2:2:3) to neladenoson (n = 27 [5 mg], n = 50 [10 mg], n = 51 [20 mg], n = 50 [30 mg], and n = 51 [40 mg]) or matching placebo (n = 76) for 20 weeks of treatment.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 20 weeks (minimal clinically important difference, 40 m). Key safety measures included bradyarrhythmias and adverse events. To evaluate the effects of varying doses of neladenoson, a multiple comparison procedure with 5 modeling techniques (linear, Emax, 2 variations of sigmoidal Emax, and quadratic) was used to evaluate diverse dose-response profiles.Results: Among 305 patients who were randomized (mean age, 74 years; 160 [53%] women; mean 6-minute walk test distance, 321.5 m), 261 (86%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis. After 20 weeks of treatment, the mean absolute changes from baseline in 6-minute walk test distance were 0.2 m (95% CI, -12.1 to 12.4 m) for the placebo group; 19.4 m (95% CI, -10.8 to 49.7 m) for the 5 mg of neladenoson group; 29.4 m (95% CI, 3.0 to 55.8 m) for 10 mg of neladenoson group; 13.8 m (95% CI, -2.3 to 29.8 m) for 20 mg of neladenoson group; 16.3 m (95% CI, -1.1 to 33.6 m) for 30 mg of neladenoson group; and 13.0 m (95% CI, -5.9 to 31.9 m) for 40 mg of neladenoson group. Because none of the neladenoson groups achieved the clinically relevant 40-m increase in 6-minute walk test distance from baseline, an optimal dose of neladenoson was not identified. There was no significant dose-response relationship for the change in 6-minute walk test distance among the 5 different dose-response models (P = .05 for Emax; P = .18 for quadratic; P = .21 for sigmoidal Emax 1; P = .39 for linear; and P = .52 for sigmoidal Emax 2). Serious adverse events were similar among the neladenoson groups (61/229 [26.6%]) and the placebo group (21/76 [27.6%]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFpEF, there was no significant dose-response relationship detected for neladenoson with regard to the change in exercise capacity from baseline to 20 weeks. In light of these findings, novel approaches will be needed if further development of neladenoson for the treatment of patients with HFpEF is pursued.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03098979. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]