doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.742353
(Circulation. 2008;117:e150.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.
Correspondence |
Response to Letter Regarding Article, "Challenges of Establishing New Antithrombotic Therapies in Atrial Fibrillation"
Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
We would like to thank Drs Ezekowitz and Nagarakanti for their interesting letter on the advisability and ethics of a superiority trial of a new antithrombotic agent against aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk for stroke. They point out the substantial and convincing evidence that warfarin is superior to aspirin at preventing strokes in atrial fibrillation. We agree that, for patients who are willing and able to take warfarin, it is a superior therapy. In these patients, a superiority trial of a new anticoagulant versus aspirin would indeed be unethical. There exists, however, a substantial population of patients who do not receive a vitamin K antagonist both in the United States and beyond. Recent surveys suggest that 40% to 50% of patients with atrial fibrillation do not receive one.1–5 Some of these patients have contraindications for any anticoagulant, and they would be ineligible for a trial of a new anticoagulant versus aspirin. Many others, however, do not receive anticoagulation because of the specific problems of using a vitamin K antagonist and the attendant need for careful, thorough, and ongoing monitoring of the international normalized ratio.
An unmet clinical need exists for an easy-to-use and effective anticoagulant for these patients, and a superiority trial against aspirin is both appropriate and ethical in this group. In addition, it is noteworthy that recent changes to treatment guidelines propose a different approach to patients at moderate risk for stroke, recommending either warfarin or aspirin for most patients who have a CHADS2 score of 1.6 In many of these patients, physicians are choosing aspirin, which, as Ezekowitz and Nagarakanti point out, is only moderately effective. It is likely that a new easy-to-use anticoagulant could be superior to aspirin. These patients are also eligible, therefore, for a superiority trial of a new anticoagulant against aspirin.
We believe that it is important to address the needs of patients who cannot take vitamin K antagonists and patients at moderate risk who may be receiving aspirin on the basis of current guideline recommendations. Several new classes of oral anticoagulant agents are being developed, and some of them may be more effective, safer, and easier to use than warfarin. Noninferiority trials often require very large numbers of patients (eg, 15 000 to 20 000) and are plagued by fundamental uncertainties in interpretation of their results. Therefore, the conduct of superiority trials when feasible is a practical way of reliably assessing the benefits and risks of new agents. Compared with noninferiority trials, this approach will more efficiently and reliably help to address the unmet clinical need for an effective, safe, and simple oral anticoagulant that will help a substantial number of patients with atrial fibrillation.
 |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Disclosures
Drs Connolly and Yusuf have received research grant support from Sanofi Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim for management of the ACTIVE and RELY trials, and both have given lectures and performed other consulting tasks for these companies. Dr Yusuf has served as a consultant/advisory board member for GlaxoSmithKline. The other authors report no conflicts.
|
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
1. Nieuwlatt R, Capucci A, Lip GYH, Olsson SB, Prins MH, Nieman FH, Lopez-Sendon J, Vardas PE, Aliot E, Santini M, Crijns H, on behalf of the Euro Heart Survey Investigators. Antithrombotic treatment in real-life atrial fibrillation patients: a report from the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27: 3018–3026.
2. Hylek EM, D’Antonio J, Evans-Molina C, Shea C, Henault LE, Regan S. Translating the results of randomized trials into clinical practice: the challenge of warfarin candidacy among hospitalized elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 2006; 37: 1075–1080.
3. Birman-Deych E, Radford MJ, Nilasena DS, Gage BF. Use and effectiveness of warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 2006; 37: 1070–1074.
4. Waldo AL, Becker RC, Tapson VF, Colgan KJ, for the NABOR Steering Committee. Hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke are not being provided with adequate anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 1729–1736.
5. Go AS, Hylek EM, Borowsky LH, Phillips KA, Selby JV, and Singer DE. Warfarin use among ambulatory patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: the AnTicoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 131: 927–934.
6. Fuster V, Ryden LE, Asinger RW, Cannom DS, Crijns HJ, Frye RL, Halperin JL, Kay GN, Klein WW, Levy S, McNamara RL, Prystowsky EN, Wann LS, Wyse DG, Gibbons RJ, Antman EM, Alpert JS, Faxon DP, Gregoratos G, Hiratzka LF, Jacobs AK, Russell RO, Smith SC Jr, Alonso-Garcia A, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, de Backer G, Flather M, Hradec J, Oto A, Parkhomenko A, Silber S, Torbicki A. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines and Policy Conferences (Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) developed in collaboration with the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. Circulation. 2001; 104: 2118–2150.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||