Search

Introduction: Equivalence trials are actually frequently used to prove non-inferiority in anticoagulant therapy. Equivalence trials consist to demonstrate that two treatments are not too much different. This difference has to be under a margin previously determined. The margin corresponds to an efficacy loss that is defined to be acceptable, in accordance to the advantages due to the new treatment. The aim of this work is to explore the equivalence trial published in the thromboembolic disease by focus on the non-inferiority margin used., Methods: We identified published equivalence trials in the venous thromboembolic disease, by a systematic search in Medline. We calculated the efficacy loss by reference with the value of the smallest effect size of the standard treatment compared to placebo., Results: We found 9 equivalence trials used in venous thromboembolic disease. The mean value of the efficacy loss was 434%, and the median value was 357%. Eighty-five percent of the values of the efficacy loss were above 100%., Discussion: Eighty-five percent of the equivalence trials conclude to equivalence despite a complete efficacy loss of the effect of the standard treatment compared to placebo. The results of equivalence trials should be interpreted warily. The corresponding non-inferiority margin should be chosen more rigorously and by reference with the value of the smallest effect size of the standard treatment compared to placebo.

Background: The optimal duration of oral anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of venous thromboembolism remains controversial., Methods and Results: We performed an open-label, randomized trial comparing a short oral anticoagulant course (3 months for proximal deep vein thrombosis [P-DVT] and/or pulmonary embolism [PE]; 6 weeks for isolated calf DVT [C-DVT]) with a long course of therapy (6 months for P-DVT/PE; 12 weeks for C-DVT). The outcome events were recurrences and major, minor, or fatal bleeding complications. A total of 736 patients were enrolled. There were 23 recurrences of venous thromboembolism in the short treatment group (6.4%) and 26 in the long treatment group (7.4%); the 2 treatment regimens had an equivalent effect. For the hemorrhage end point, the difference between the short and the long treatment groups was not significant: 15.5% versus 18.4% for all events (P=0.302), 1.7% versus 2.8% (P=0.291) for major events, and 13.9% versus 15.3% for minor bleeding. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the rate of recurrence was lower for C-DVT than for P-DVT or PE., Conclusions: After isolated C-DVT, 6 weeks of oral anticoagulation is sufficient. For P-DVT or PE, we demonstrated an equivalence between 3 and 6 months of anticoagulant therapy. For patients with temporary risk factors who have a low risk of recurrence, 3 months of treatment seems to be sufficient. For patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism or permanent risk factors who have a high risk of recurrence, other trials are necessary to assess prolonged therapy beyond 6 months.

The optimal duration of oral anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is still a matter of debate. It is essential to balance the desired effect of the anticoagulants in reducing recurrences against the risk of major bleeding. The aims of this paper are to describe the current concepts in this field. Recent data, based on randomized controlled trials, suggest that it is necessary to tailor the duration of anticoagulation individually according to the topography of VTE and the presence of risk factors. A 6-week treatment for patients with isolated calf vein thrombosis is sufficient. For proximal thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism, a short anticoagulant course is sufficient in patients with temporary risk factors (3 months), and a longer anticoagulant course (6 months at least) is recommended for cases with permanent risk factors or idiopathic VTE. For these high-risk of recurrence patients, an assessment of low- or fixed-dose oral anticoagulation is necessary in order to reduce the bleeding risk. It is not possible to precisely determine the optimal duration with the available data. We have already performed a meta-analysis on summary data that suggests a long course of oral anticoagulant therapy is superior to a short course. An individual meta-analytic approach is needed to draw more precise conclusions on an interesting and important clinical topic.

Objective: To assess the length of oral anticoagulant therapy (short versus long duration) after a first episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Design: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, comparing two durations of anticoagulation, identified in 1999 by a computerized search of the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, Medline and Embase, completed by an extensive review of the references of pertinent articles., Setting and Subjects: The meta-analysis was performed on literature data. Seven published controlled trials were included. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were computed using the relative risk logarithm method. Statistical significance was set up at 0.01 for the test of association., Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes are major haemorrhage and recurrence after a 12-month follow-up., Results: For the recurrence end-point (sample size of 2304 patients), a duration treatment of 12-24 weeks seems preferable to a 3-6 week regimen, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.45-0.79, P < 0.001). For the major haemorrhage end-point (1823 patients), the RR is not significantly different from 1 (RR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.51-4.01, P = 0. 5). The results were similar for the subgroup 'permanent risk factors' or 'idiopathic VTE' (RR for recurrence = 0.48, 95% CI: 0. 34-0.68, P < 0.001). The tendency was similar, although not reaching statistical significance, for the 'temporary risk factors' subgroup (RR for recurrence = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.93, P = 0.035)., Conclusions: After a first episode of VTE, a long-term treatment regimen allows a significant reduction in the incidence of recurrences without increasing the incidence of bleeding events.

This study establishes a population PK model for FVII clotting activity (FVII:C) after injection of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) to healthy volunteers. Twenty eight volunteers, anticoagulated with acenocoumarol, received one or two rFVIIa injections, with dose ranging from 5 to 320 microg/kg. The FVII:C kinetic was fitted to a 2 compartment model, with continuous "endogenous perfusion" mimicking endogenous activity. Estimated clearance was 2.4 1/h (20% inter-individual variability and 9% inter-period variability). The volume of distribution at steady-state appeared to be significantly dose dependent: 78 ml/kg for doses < or = 20 microg/kg and 88 ml/kg for doses > 20 microg/kg respectively, with 16% inter-individual variability. The dose producing 50% of the maximum drop of INR was estimated to be 2.2 microg/kg. The model will be used to better define the dosage regimen for future clinical developments.

Background: Moderate anticoagulation may be proposed to reduce the risk of hemorrhage for certain patients with a mechanical prosthesis, but the consequences for risk of thromboembolism are debated., Methods and Results: The purpose of the AREVA trial was to compare moderate oral anticoagulation (international normalized ratio [INR] of 2.0 to 3.0) with the usual regimen (INR of 3.0 to 4.5) after a single-valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis, either Omnicarbon or St Jude. Patients included were between 18 and 75 years old, in sinus rhythm, and with a left atrial diameter < or = 50 mm on the time-motion echocardiogram. Patients were randomized for INR after surgery. From 1991 to 1994, 433 patients underwent valve replacement (aortic, 414; mitral, 19) with 353 St Jude and 80 Omnicarbon prostheses; 380 patients were randomized for INR: 188 for INR 2.0 to 3.0 and 192 for INR 3.0 to 4.5. Mean follow-up was 2.2 years (1 to 4 years). Analysis of 18001 INR samples showed that the mean of the median of INR was 2.74 +/- 0.35 in the 2.0 to 3.0 group and 3.21 +/- 0.33 in the 3.0 to 4.5 group (P < .0001). Thromboembolic events, as assessed from clinical data and CT brain scans, occurred in 10 patients in the 2.0 to 3.0 INR group and 9 patients in the 3.0 to 4.5 INR group (P = .78). Hemorrhagic events occurred in 34 patients in the 2.0 to 3.0 INR group and 56 patients in the 3.0 to 4.5 INR group (P < .01), with 13 and 19 major hemorrhagic events, respectively (P = .29)., Conclusions: In selected patients with mechanical prostheses, moderate anticoagulation prevents thromboembolic events as effectively as conventional anticoagulation and reduces the incidence of hemorrhagic events.

Every clinician managing a patient with venous thromboembolism of the lower limbs is faced with two opposing problems: first the risk of antivitamin K induced haemorrhage requires adequate but not excessive hypocoaguability of limited duration (international normalized ratio between 2 and 3); second the threat of recurrence requiring an adequate level of hypocoaguability of sufficient duration. Recently reported clinical data have greatly changed management attitudes. Current recommendations favour a 6 week regimen of antivitamin K for distal venous thrombosis in patients with thromboembolism of lower limb veins without any other aggravating factor and a 12 week regimen for proximal vein thrombosis or pulmonary emboli, although the therapeutic efficacity and risk remain to be demonstrated with precision. In France, we are conducting a multicentric controlled study with sufficient power (1800 patients) comparing parallel groups of patients: those with distal deep venous thrombosis treated 6 versus 12 week regimens, those with proximal deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary emboli treated 12 versus 24 week regimens. The "DOTAVK" study (Durée Optimale du Traitement Antivitamine K) involves patients with first time venous thrombosis or pulmonary emboli and no underlying neoplasia or coagulation disease. The two criteria of outcome are haemorrhage complications and thromboembolic recurrence during treatment and the first year after treatment withdrawal.

Evidence of the preventive efficiency of long term oral anticoagulant (OA) therapy after myocardial infarction (MI) is still controversial. In an attempt to reappraise this problem, a study has been undertaken using the odds ratio method in which the data from 7 published studies of long term OA therapy after MI were pooled. The studies selected met predefined quality standards. The combination of the studies provided a sample of 1284 patients in the OA group versus 1013 in the reference group. The total mortality rates were 20.73% in the control group and 17.99% in the OA group; the difference is significant at p = 0.05. For recurrent MI only 5 trials could be pooled. The reinfarction rates were 13.81% in the control group versus 10.25% in the OA group, and again the difference is significant. The interpretation of such reassessed data is subject to certain limitations.

Fifty-eight patients with Raynaud's phenomenon were randomly allocated in a six week double-blind clinical trial in parallel groups to compare the efficacy of a pure antiplatelet agent, ticlopidine (250 mg b.i.d.) with that of a placebo. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in percent reduction of weekly number of attacks and in subjective improvement assessed by both patient and investigator. It is unlikely that platelets are involved in the mechanisms of Raynaud's crisis.

In this multicenter trial 169 patients with chronic intermittent claudication due to obstructive peripheral vascular disease were randomized in a double-blind fashion into two parallel groups receiving either 250 mg ticlopidine or placebo, twice daily. At entry, the two groups (83 ticlopidine, 86 placebo) were well matched for the major clinical features apart from an excess of women in the ticlopidine group. At six months, 167 patients were alive, 2 having died of malignant disease (1 from each group). At this stage, 39 patients from the ticlopidine group and 29 from the placebo group (p = 0.04) had increased their walking distance by more than 50% of baseline values. For the groups as a whole pain-free and total walking distance were greater in the ticlopidine group than in the placebo group (194 vs 124 meters, p = 0.03 and 236 vs 170 meters, p = 0.04, respectively). Two patients from the ticlopidine group vs 9 patients from the placebo group (p = 0.03) developed significant cardiovascular events during the study. These results indicate that ticlopidine has a beneficial effect both in the treatment of the symptoms and the prevention of vascular complications in patients with intermittent claudication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: Equivalence trials are actually frequently used to prove non-inferiority in anticoagulant therapy. Equivalence trials consist to demonstrate that two treatments are not too much different. This difference has to be under a margin previously determined. The margin corresponds to an efficacy loss that is defined to be acceptable, in accordance to the advantages due to the new treatment. The aim of this work is to explore the equivalence trial published in the thromboembolic disease by focus on the non-inferiority margin used. Methods: We identified published equivalence trials in the venous thromboembolic disease, by a systematic search in Medline. We calculated the efficacy loss by reference with the value of the smallest effect size of the standard treatment compared to placebo. Results: We found 9 equivalence trials used in venous thromboembolic disease. The mean value of the efficacy loss was 434%, and the median value was 357%. Eighty-five percent of the values of the efficacy loss were above 100%. Discussion: Eighty-five percent of the equivalence trials conclude to equivalence despite a complete efficacy loss of the effect of the standard treatment compared to placebo. The results of equivalence trials should be interpreted warily. The corresponding non-inferiority margin should be chosen more rigorously and by reference with the value of the smallest effect size of the standard treatment compared to placebo. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]