Why the study?
Does TAK-442 increase major bleeding when added to standard treatment in stabilised patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Does TAK-442 increase major bleeding when added to standard treatment in stabilised patients with acute coronary syndrome?
In stabilized patients with ACS, the addition of the oral factor Xa inhibitor TAK-442 to usual care did not significantly increase TIMI major bleeding but showed no evidence of efficacy and increased bleeding on a more sensitive scale.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
TAK-442 addition does not significantly raise TIMI major bleeding in stabilized ACS; challenges further development absent efficacy signals.
TAK-442 is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. We sought to determine the dose-dependent effect of TAK-442 on major bleeding when added to standard treatment in stabilised patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this phase II double-blind study, 2,753 ACS patients were randomised to TAK-442 or placebo in addition to usual care using a three-stage adaptive design. Patients were randomised to placebo in all stages, but doses of TAK-442 escalated from 10 mg BID, 20 mg twice-daily (BID), or 40 mg once-daily (QD) in stage 1; to 40 mg BID, 80 mg QD, or 80 mg BID in stage 2; and to 160 mg QD or 120 mg BID in stage 3. Study drug was started 36 hours after emergent treatment of ACS and within seven days of admission, and continued for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was incidence of TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction) major bleeding. TIMI major bleeding incidence was low, but higher with the pooled TAK-442 doses than with placebo (17 [0.9%] vs 4 [0.5%]; p=0.47), although the difference was neither significant nor dose-dependent. However, a dose response was evident when using the modified ISTH scale. The incidence of cardiovascular events was similar among TAK-442 dose groups and placebo. When administered over a wide range of doses after an ACS event, TAK-442 treatment did not result in a dose-dependent increase in TIMI major bleeding, but increased bleeding was observed when a more sensitive bleeding scale was used. There was no evidence for efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bates et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: