Edoxaban monotherapy lowered the risk of adverse outcomes, including death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, and systemic embolism at 12 months compared to the dual antithrombotic therapy approach in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease.
Image credit: magicmine | stock.adobe.com
Trial results show that edoxaban monotherapy reduced the risk of the primary net clinical outcome compared to dual antithrombotic therapy comprised of edoxaban plus a single antiplatelet medication over 12 months in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease.1,2 Findings from the Phase IV EPIC-CAD trial (NCT03718559), published by The New England Journal of Medicine, show edoxaban monotherapy lowered the risk of adverse outcomes, including death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, and systemic embolism at 12 months compared to the dual antithrombotic therapy approach.
“In this multicenter, randomized trial that assessed two long-term antithrombotic strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease, the risk of the primary net clinical outcome—a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, unplanned urgent revascularization, or major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding—was lower with standard-dose edoxaban monotherapy than with dual antithrombotic treatment with edoxaban plus a single antiplatelet agent,” the study authors wrote. “This result appeared to be driven mainly by a lower incidence of bleeding events. The incidence of ischemic events and mortality appeared to be similar in the trial groups.”1
Edoxaban is a factor Xa inhibitor indicated to lower the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. As a selective inhibitor of FXa, edoxaban does not require antithrombin III for antithrombotic activity.3
The multicenter, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial randomly assigned 524 patients to the edoxaban monotherapy cohort and 516 patients to the dual antithrombotic therapy cohort at 18 sites in South Korea. The trial’s primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, unplanned urgent revascularization, and major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding at 12 months, with secondary outcomes that included composite of major ischemic events and the safety outcome of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.
Patients in the trial had a mean age of 72.1 years, 22.9% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3. After 12 months, investigators noted a primary outcome event in 34 patients (Kaplan–Meier estimate, 6.8%) in the edoxaban monotherapy cohort and 79 patients (16.2%) in the dual antithrombotic therapy cohort (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.65; P<0.001). Cumulative incidence of major ischemic events at 12 months was found to be similar across both cohorts. Twenty-three patients in the edoxaban monotherapy group experienced major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (Kaplan–Meier estimate, 4.7%) compared to 70 patients (14.2%) in the dual antithrombotic therapy cohort (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.53).
“With respect to the primary outcome, the treatment effect of edoxaban monotherapy as compared with dual antithrombotic therapy appeared to be consistent across all prespecified subgroups,” the study authors wrote. “In a post hoc analysis, the treatment effect with respect to a composite of major ischemic events and a composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was similar across all prespecified subgroups. Findings for the primary outcome were consistent irrespective of past use of antithrombotic therapy, the appropriateness of the edoxaban dose, and the combination of antiplatelet agents.”1
In terms of safety, edoxaban monotherapy was found superior to dual antithrombotic therapy in the cumulative incidence of net adverse clinical events at 12 months.
“Our approach provided a clinical benefit of fewer bleeding events without an apparent difference in major ischemic events between the trial groups. However, none of the available trials, including the EPIC-CAD trial, were designed to assess meaningful differences in clinically relevant ischemic events and mortality,” the study authors concluded. “Nonetheless, given that none of the contemporary trials that assessed the appropriate antithrombotic strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease enrolled a large enough sample to detect a meaningful reduction in the incidence of ischemic events, conducting new trials with a sufficient sample size to determine the true efficacy of an antithrombotic strategy would not be feasible.”1
References
1. Soo Cho, M., et al. Edoxaban Antithrombotic Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation and Stable Coronary Artery Disease. Published September 1, 2024. N Engl J Med 2024. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2407362.
2. Edoxaban Versus Edoxaban With antiPlatelet Agent In Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Stable Coronary Artery Disease (EPIC-CAD). ClinicalTrials.gov. June 10, 2024. Accessed September 4, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03718559
3. FDA.gov. Website. SAVAYSA (edoxaban) tablets Label.
Behind the Buzz: Why Clinical Research Leaders Flock to SCOPE Summit
February 7th 2025In this episode, we meet with Micah Lieberman, Executive Conference Director for SCOPE Summit (Summit for Clinical Ops Executives) at Cambridge Innovation Institute. We will dive deep into the critical role of collaboration within the clinical research ecosystem. How do we bring together diverse stakeholders—sponsors, CROs, clinical trial tech innovators, suppliers, patients, sites, advocacy organizations, investors, and non-profits—to share best practices in trial design, program planning, innovation, and clinical operations? We’ll explore why it’s vital for thought leaders to step beyond their own organizations and learn from others, exchanging ideas that drive advancements in clinical research. Additionally, we’ll discuss the pivotal role of scientific conferences like SCOPE Summit in fostering these essential connections and collaborations, helping shape the future of clinical trials. Join us as we uncover how collective wisdom and cross-industry partnerships are transforming the landscape of clinical research.
Making the Grade: Registries as Sources of Regulatory-Grade Real-World Evidence (RWE)
February 13th 2025Dr. Peter Wahl, MLA, MS, ScD, VP and Global Head of Scientific Affairs at CorEvitas, part of the PPD™ clinical research business of Thermo Fisher Scientific, discusses the critical role of protocol-driven registries in generating regulatory grade RWE to serve multiple and evolving evidence needs across the drug development life cycle. He covers key considerations for selecting the right type of registry, the advantages over EMR datasets, and how registry data contextualizes safety and effectiveness to fulfill FDA and EMA post-marketing requirements.
Reaching Diverse Patient Populations With Personalized Treatment Methods
January 20th 2025Daejin Abidoye, head of solid tumors, oncology development, AbbVie, discusses a number of topics around diversity in clinical research including industry’s greatest challenges in reaching diverse patient populations, personalized treatment methods, recruitment strategies, and more.
SCOPE Summit 2025: Enhancing the Patient Experience Through Site Centricity
February 12th 2025In an interview with ACT senior editor Andy Studna at SCOPE Summit, Ashley Davidson, vice president, product lead - sponsor tech strategy, Advarra, highlights the need for more site-centric approaches in study startup.