Randomized, Parallel Group, Multicenter, Multinational Study Evaluating Safety of DU-176b Compared with Warfarin in Subjects with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction : The primary objective of this phase II study was to assess the safety of different dose regimens of DU-176b, an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods : This was a randomized, parallel group, multicenter, multinational, double-blind DU-176b and open-label warfarin safety study in patients with AF (CHADS2 index ≥ 2). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either one of four fixed dose regimens of DU-176b (30 mg qd, 30 mg bid, 60 mg qd or 60 mg bid) or warfarin dose-adjusted to a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0–3.0. for 12 weeks. Investigators, sponsor and study subjects were blinded to DU-176b dose but not to the identity of DU-176b vs. warfarin. Investigators adjusted warfarin doses based on INR values obtained in local laboratories. The INR was determined weekly for 4 weeks and every two weeks thereafter. The primary outcomes were the occurrence of centrally adjudicated major and/or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, and elevated liver enzymes and/or bilirubin. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalizations due to cardiovascular condition or cardiovascular death, as well as all other adverse events, including all bleeding events. Results : A total of 1,146 patients were randomized. There were no clinically relevant differences between treatment groups with respect to the demographic data and baseline characteristics. Mean age was 65±8.7 years, 63.3% of patients had a CHADS2 index of 2 and 64.40% were warfarin naïve. The DU-176b 60 mg bid treatment arm was prematurely terminated during the study based on a recommendation by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). A total of 180 patients were randomized to this group at the time. The incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events was significantly higher in both the DU-176b 60 mg bid and 30 mg bid groups than in those given warfarin. The incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events in the DU-176b 30 mg qd and 60 mg qd groups was similar to that in warfarin-treated patients. The time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin-experienced patients was 50.1% and for warfarin naïve patients was 41.8%. There were no significant differences in the number (%) of subjects with persistently elevated ALT, AST, or bilirubin values across the treatment groups. The incidence of stroke was similar across treatment groups (Table). DU-176b 30 mg qd N=235 DU-176b 60 mg qd N=234 DU-176b 30 mg bid N=244 DU-176b 60 mg bid N=180 Warfarin qd N=250 Bleeding, n (%) (95% CI) Major+CR non-major 7 (3.0) (1.2–6.0) 11 (4.7) (2.4–8.3) 19 (7.8) (4.8–11.9)a 19 (10.6) (6.5–16.0)b 8 (3.2) (1.4–6.2) Major 0 (0) (0–1.6) 1 (0.4) (0–2.4) 5 (2.0) (0.7–4.7) 6 (3.3) (1.2–7.1)a 1 (0.4) (0–2.2) All 13 (5.5) (3.0–9.3) 19 (8.1) (5.0–12.4) 32 (13.1) (9.1–18.0) 33 (18.3) (13.0–24.8)b 20 (8.0) (5.0–12.1) Stroke, n (%) (95% CI) 1 (0.4) (0–2.3) 1 (0.4) (0–2.4) 2 (0.8) (0.1–2.9) 2 (1.1) (0.1–4.0) 4 (1.6) (0.4–4.0) Conclusions : DU-176b 30 mg qd and 60 mg qd dose regimens had a safety profile similar to warfarin in patients with AF. Patients treated with the DU-176b 30 mg bid or 60 mg bid regimens had more bleeding events than occurred with warfarin. These results suggest that the DU-176b 30 mg qd or 60 mg qd regimens are safe and well tolerated. A Phase III trial is needed to determine whether DU-176b will provide a suitable replacement for warfarin in AF patients. CR, clinically relevant. aP<0.05, bP=0.002 to warfarin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".