1 / 25

Switch

Switch. Safety and Efficacy of Crossover (Switch) from UFH/Enox to Bivalirudin: Results from ACUITY. Dr. Harvey White Green Lane Cardiovascular Service Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, NZ. Switch. Disclosure. Research Grants :

oshin
Download Presentation

Switch

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Switch Safety and Efficacy of Crossover (Switch) from UFH/Enox to Bivalirudin: Results from ACUITY Dr. Harvey White Green Lane Cardiovascular Service Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, NZ Switch

  2. Disclosure • Research Grants : • Alexion Fournier Laboratories Sanofi Aventis Johnson & Johnson Eli Lilly Proctor & Gamble • Merck Sharpe & DohmeSchering PloughRoche • The Medicines CompanyGlaxo Smith Kline Pfizer • Neuren Pharmaceuticals NIH • Consultant: • Sanofi Aventis The Medicines Company

  3. Background • ACS patients • 87% of patients receive either UFH or Enox within 24 hours after admission1 • 72% of patients in Synergy and 50 % of patients in OASIS- 5received prior antithrombin2,3 • Published studies and perceptions • Patients in Synergy who crossed over between UFH and Enox had an increase in bleeding complications2 • This activity occurred at various times through the study period: at times in response to clinical or clinician perception • Consistent therapy is better4 1 CRUSADE( 1Q-2006 results); 2 Synergy results; JAMA 2004; 3 OASIS -5; Yusuf et al,NEJM 2006; 4 Cohen et al, JACC 2006;

  4. Scope of Analysis • This analysis will address the question of the safety and efficacy of switching from indirect thrombin inhibition (UFH or Enox) to direct thrombin inhibition (bivalirudin) • A protocol-driven activity of the ACUITY study at the time of randomization

  5. PNI <0.001 PSup = 0.015 PNI = 0.011 PSup = 0.32 PNI <0.001 PSup <0.001 ACUITY: Primary results • Heparin* + IIb/IIIa vs. Bivalirudin + IIb/IIIa vs. Bivalirudin Alone *Heparin=unfractionated or enoxaparin

  6. Study Medications • Anti-thrombin agents (started pre angiography) 1 Target aPTT 50-75 seconds 2 If last enoxaparin dose ≥8h - <16h before PCI; 3 If maintenance dose discontinued or ≥16h from last dose 4 Discontinued at end of PCI with option to continue at 0.25mg/kg for 4-12h if GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor not used 5 Bivalirudin option for off-pump same as PCI dose. For on-pump bivalirudin discontinued 2 hours before 6 Option to continue with pre-PCI anti-thrombotic regimen at physician discretion

  7. Prior treatment • ACUITY Protocol requirements • Patients on an antithrombin (either UFH or Enox) prior to randomization: • Continued the same treatment if randomized into Heparin(s) + GP IIb/IIIa arm • Switched to bivalirudin if randomized to one of the bivalirudin arms • Following results of Synergy UFH was allowed in the trial • Sites prospectively determined the preferred anti-thrombin strategy of either UFH or Enox • Switch between UFH and Enox was not permitted

  8. Current Analysis • Hypothesis • Bivalirudin improves bleeding outcomes while preserving ischemic protection for ACS patients even if the patients are switched from either UFH or enoxaparin to bivalirudin (monotherapy) at the time of presentation. • Is it better to switch to bivalirudin or remain on consistent therapy?

  9. Current Analysis • Methods • Patients on prior antithrombin • Consistent: No switching from pre-randomization anti-thrombin to randomized therapy: • Enox →Enox or UFH → UFH • Switch: Single switch to bivalirudin determined by randomization code • from Enox → bivalirudin or UFH →bivalirudin • Event rates at 30-days • Net Clinical Outcome • Ischemic Composite • Major Bleeding

  10. ACUITY Primary Endpoints at 30 days • Net Clinical Endpoint • Composite ischemic and non-CABG major bleeding endpoints • Ischemic Endpoint • Death, MI, or unplanned revascularization • Non-CABG Major Bleeding Endpoint • Intracranial, intraocular, or retroperitoneal bleeding • Access site bleed requiring intervention/surgery • Hematoma ≥5 cm • Hgb ≥3g/dL with an overt source or ≥4g/dL w/o overt source • Blood transfusion

  11. Consort Diagram ACUITYN = 13819 Arm AHeparins + IIb/IIIaN = 4603 Arm B Bivalirudin + GP IIb/IIIaN = 4604 Arm CBivalirudinN = 4612

  12. Consort Diagram ACUITYN = 13819 Arm AHeparins + IIb/IIIaN = 4603 Arm CBivalirudinN = 4612

  13. Consort Diagram ACUITY13819 Pts on Prior ATN = 6606 ╪ Arm A: CONSISTENTHeparins + IIb/IIIaN = 2223 Arm C: SWITCHBivalirudinN = 2237 • ╪ excludes Arm B and pts. with multiple crossovers, missing data

  14. Consort Diagram UFH→UFHN = 1294 UFH→BivN = 1313 Enox→EnoxN = 929 Enox→BivN = 857 ACUITY13819 Pts on Prior ATN = 6606 ╪ CONSISTENTUFH/EnoxN = 2223 SWITCHBivalirudin*N = 2237 • * Includes 67 pts. who had UFH and Enox • ╪ excludes Arm B and pts. with multiple crossovers, missing data

  15. Baseline Characteristics Consistent UFH/Enox vs. Switch to Biv * creatinine clearance <60 mL/min *Elevated cardiac markers and/or ST changes

  16. 0.77 [0.63 – 0.91] 0.95 [0.76 – 1.17] 0.47 [0.35 – 0.64] P=0.002 P=0.601 P<0.001 Consistent vs. Switch Comparing Consistent therapy on UFH/Enox vs. Switch Bivalirudin Alone

  17. Consistent vs. SwitchAll Patients - Adjusted OR (95% CI) P-value Odds ratio±95% CI Ischemia 1.10 (0.86-1.41) 0.464 Major Bleeding <0.001 0.47 (0.34-0.65) Net Clinical Outcome 0.83 (0.67-1.02) 0.073 Switch to Bivalirudin alone better Consistent UFH/Enox better * Comparing consistent Hep/Enox vs Switch Bivalirudin

  18. Consistent vs. SwitchHigh Risk - Unadjusted Comparing Consistent UFH/Enox vs Switch Bivalirudin

  19. Consistent vs. SwitchHigh Risk - Adjusted Comparing Consistent UFH/Enox vs Switch Bivalirudin OR (95% CI) P-value Odds ratio±95% CI Ischemia 1.11 (0.85-1.46) 0.445 Major Bleeding <0.001 0.51 (0.36-0.72) Net Clinical Outcome 0.86 (0.68-1.07) 0.177 Switch to Bivalirudin alone better Consistent UFH/Enox better

  20. Consistent vs. SwitchPatients undergoing PCI - Unadjusted Comparing Consistent UFH/Enox vs Switch Bivalirudin

  21. 0.81 [0.61 – 1.07] 0.92 [0.65 – 1.30] 0.54 [0.34 – 0.88] P=0.145 P=0.626 P=0.013 Consistent vs. Switch Comparing Consistent therapy on Enox vs. Switch from Enox to Bivalirudin Alone

  22. 0.75[0.60 – 0.94] 0.98[0.74 – 1.28] 0.44[0.30 – 0.65] P=0.012 P=0.857 P<0.001 Consistent vs. Switch Comparing Consistent therapy on UFH vs. Switch from UFH to Bivalirudin Alone

  23. Consistent vs. SwitchAdjusted Comparing Consistent UFH/Enox vs Switch to Bivalirudin Consistent Enox vs. bivalirudin Consistent UFH vs. bivalirudin OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) Odds ratio±95% CI P-value Odds ratio±95% CI P-value 1.07 (0.72-1.59) 1.18 (0.86-1.63) 0.732 0.312 Ischemia Ischemia MajorBleeding MajorBleeding 0.032 <0.001 0.55 (0.32-0.95) 0.40 (0.26-0.61) Net ClinicalOutcome Net ClinicalOutcome 0.472 0.89 (0.64-1.23) 0.78 (0.59-1.03) 0.081 Switch to Bivalirudinalone better Consistent Enoxbetter Switch to Bivalirudinalone better Consistent UFHbetter

  24. Limitations • Post-hoc subgroup analysis • Pre-randomization use of anti-thrombin was not stratified • Timing and dose of last UFH and Enox was not collected in the CRF

  25. Conclusions • Switching to bivalirudin is safe • Switching from any heparin (either enoxaparin or UFH) to bivalirudin monotherapy is not associated with an increased risk for ischemic events. • Furthermore • Switch to bivalirudin provides patients the 50% bleeding advantage of bivalirudin compared with consistent therapy on UFH or enoxaparin.

More Related