Do open label blinded outcome studies of novel anticoagulants versus warfarin have equivalent validity to those carried out under double-blind conditions?

Summary

Recent anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF have been tested in active comparator controlled studies versus warfarin using two designs: double-blind, double-dummy and prospective randomised, open blinded endpoint (PROBE). The former requires elaborate procedures to maintain blinding, while PROBE does not. Outcomes of double-blind and PROBE designed studies of novel anticoagulants for AF, focusing on warfarin controls, were explored. Major, Phase III warfarin-controlled trials for stroke prevention in AF were identified. Odds ratios (ORs) of key outcomes for active comparators versus VKA and event rates for VKA arms were compared between designs, in context of baseline demographics and inclusion criteria. Identified trials studied five novel anticoagulants in three each of PROBE and double-blind design. For ORs of results across studies and outcomes, there was little pattern differentiating the two designs. Among VKA-control subjects, event rates for the primary outcome (stroke or systemic embolism) in PROBE trials at 1.74 %/year (95% confidence interval: 1.54–1.95) was not significantly different from that in double-blind trials, at 1.88 (1.73–2.03). Among other outcomes, VKA-treated subjects in both trial designs had similar event rates, apart from higher all-cause mortality in ROCKET AF, and lower myocardial infarction rates among the PROBE study patients. Although there are differences in outcome between PROBE and double blind trials, they do not appear to be design-related. The exacting requirements of double-blinding in AF trials may not be necessary.

Keywords

Metaanalysis - coagulation inhibitors - management of disease - thrombosis - clinical studies

• References

• 1 Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 857-867.
• 2 Gallagher AM, Setakis E, Plumb JM. et al. Risks of stroke and mortality associated with suboptimal anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 968-977.
• 3 Ogilvie IM, Welner SA, Cowell W. et al. Ischaemic stroke and bleeding rates in 'real-world' atrial fibrillation patients. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 34-44.
• 4 Wilke T, Groth A, Mueller S. et al. Oral anticoagulation use by patients with atrial fibrillation in Germany. Adherence to guidelines, causes of anticoagulation under-use and its clinical outcomes, based on claims-data of 183,448 patients. Thromb Haemost 2012; 107: 1053-1065.
• 5 Ahrens I, Lip GY, Peter K. What do the RE-LY, AVERROES and ROCKET-AF trials tell us for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation?. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 574-578.
• 6 Casteels M, Flamion B. Open-label trials and drug registration: a European regulator’s view. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 232-234.
• 7 Sever PS, Dahlof B, Poulter NR. et al. Rationale, design, methods and baseline demography of participants of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial. ASCOT investigators. J Hypertens 2001; 19: 1139-1147.
• 8 Hansson L, Hedner T, Dahlof B. Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials. Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-Point. Blood Press 1992; 1: 113-119.
• 9 Smith DH, Neutel JM, Lacourciere Y. et al. Prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) designed trials yield the same results as double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with respect to ABPM measurements. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1291-1298.
• 10 Buller HR, Halperin JL, Bounameaux H. et al. Double-blind studies are not always optimum for evaluation of a novel therapy: the case of new anticoagulants. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 227-229.
• 11 Cochrane IMS.. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.1. Available at: http:ims.cochrane.org/revman. Accessed: December 16, 2011.
• 12 Eikelboom JW, O’Donnell M, Yusuf S. et al. Rationale and design of AVERROES: apixaban versus acetylsalicylic acid to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation patients who have failed or are unsuitable for vitamin K antagonist treatment. Am Heart J 2010; 159: 348-353.
• 13 Ezekowitz MD, Connolly S, Parekh A. et al. Rationale and design of RE-LY: randomized evaluation of long-term anticoagulant therapy, warfarin, compared with dabigatran. Am Heart J 2009; 157: 805-810.
• 14 Bousser MG, Bouthier J, Buller HR. et al. Comparison of idraparinux with vitamin K antagonists for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008; 371: 315-321.
• 15 Halperin JL. Ximelagatran compared with warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Rationale, objectives, and design of a pair of clinical studies and baseline patient characteristics (SPORTIF III and V). Am Heart J 2003; 146: 431-438.
• 16 Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S. et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1139-1151.
• 17 Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S. et al. Newly identified events in the RE-LY trial. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1875-1876.
• 18 Olsson SB. Executive Steering Committee of the SPORTIF III Investigators. Stroke prevention with the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (SPORTIF III): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 362: 1691-1698.
• 19 Rivaroxaban-once daily, oral, direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation: rationale and design of the ROCKET AF study. Am Heart J 2010; 159: 340-347.
• 20 Lopes RD, Alexander JH, Al-Khatib SM. et al. Apixaban for reduction in stroke and other ThromboemboLic events in atrial fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial: design and rationale. Am Heart J 2010; 159: 331-339.
• 21 Albers GW, Diener HC, Frison L. et al. Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc 2005; 293: 690-698.
• 22 Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J. et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 883-891.
• 23 Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GY. et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 2369-2429.
• 24 Mahaffey KW, Fox KAA. Rivaroxaban once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation. Available at: http://my.americanheart.org/idc/groups/ahamah-public/@wcm/@sop/@scon/documents/downloadable/ucm_426788.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2012.
• 25 Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ. et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 981-992.