Dabigatran

{{drugbox | | IUPAC_name = Ethyl 3-{[(2-{[(4-{N'-[(hexyloxy)carbonyl] carbamimidoyl}phenyl)amino]methyl}-1-methyl-1H- benzimidazol-5-yl)carbonyl] (2-pyridinyl)amino}propanoate | image = Dabigatran etexilate.png | width = 135px | CAS_number = 211915-06-9 | CAS_supplemental = 211914-51-1 | ATC_prefix = | ATC_suffix = | ATC_supplemental= | PubChem = 6445226 | DrugBank = | chemical_formula = | C=34 | H=41 | N=7 | I= | Br= | Cl= | F= | O=5 | P= | S= | Se= | Na= | charge= | molecular_weight = 627.734 (471.511 without etexilate) | specific_rotation = | sec_combustion = | bioavailability = | protein_bound = | metabolism = | elimination_half-life = | excretion = | pregnancy_AU = | pregnancy_US = | pregnancy_category = | legal_AU = | legal_UK = | legal_US = | legal_status = | dependency_liability = unknown | routes_of_administration = oral }} Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]

Please Join in Editing This Page and Apply to be an Editor-In-Chief for this topic: There can be one or more than one Editor-In-Chief. You may also apply to be an Associate Editor-In-Chief of one of the subtopics below. Please mail us [2] to indicate your interest in serving either as an Editor-In-Chief of the entire topic or as an Associate Editor-In-Chief for a subtopic. Please be sure to attach your CV and or biographical sketch.

Synonyms and keywords: Pradaxa, rendix

To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at (800) 542-6257 or (800) 459-9906 TTY or FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

Overview

Dabigatran is an anticoagulant from the class of the direct thrombin inhibitors. It is being studied for various clinical indications, for some of which it may replace warfarin as the preferred anticoagulant. It is orally administered as the prodrug dabigatran etexilate (planned trade names Rendix and Pradaxa). It was developed by pharmaceutical company Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Development

Dabigatran (then compound BIBR 953) was discovered from a panel of chemicals with similar structure to benzamidine-based thrombin inhibitor α-NAPAP (N-alpha-(2-naphthylsulfonylglycyl)-4-amidinophenylalanine piperidide), which had been known since the 1980s as a powerful inhibitor of various serine proteases, specifically thrombin but also trypsin. Addition of a hydrophobic side chain led to the orally absorbed prodrug BIBR 1048 (dabigatran etexilate).
Phase 3 clinical trials are ongoing in treatment and prevention of secondary venous thromboembolism (VTE) in post-operative orthopedic patients (expected results by Oct 2007); long-term prophylaxis in acute coronary syndrome and stroke patients and symptomatic VTE because of various causes (expected results by 2009-2010).

Dosing

The dose approved for use in atrial fibrillation is 150 mg orally twice a day (PO bid) in patients with a CrCl > 30 ml/min. In patients with renal insufficiency (CrCl 15-30 ml/min), the dose is 75 mg orally twice a day (PO bid). Patients should be instructed not to chew, break, or open capsules. If a dose of PRADAXA is not taken at the scheduled time, the dose should be taken as soon as possible on the same day; the missed dose should be skipped if it cannot be taken at least 6 hours before the next scheduled dose. The dose of PRADAXA should not be doubled to make up for a missed dose.

Converting from or to Warfarin

When converting patients from warfarin therapy to PRADAXA, discontinue warfarin and start PRADAXA when the international normalized ratio (INR) is below 2.0. When converting from PRADAXA to warfarin, adjust the starting time of warfarin based on creatinine clearance as follows: • For CrCl >50 mL/min, start warfarin 3 days before discontinuing PRADAXA. • For CrCl 31-50 mL/min, start warfarin 2 days before discontinuing PRADAXA. • For CrCl 15-30 mL/min, start warfarin 1 day before discontinuing PRADAXA. • For CrCl <15 mL/min, no recommendations can be made. Because PRADAXA can contribute to an elevated INR, the INR will better reflect warfarin’s effect after PRADAXA has been stopped for at least 2 days.

Converting from or to Parenteral Anticoagulants

For patients currently receiving a parenteral anticoagulant, start PRADAXA 0 to 2 hours before the time that the next dose of the parenteral drug was to have been administered or at the time of discontinuation of a continuously administered parenteral drug (e.g., intravenous unfractionated heparin). For patients currently taking PRADAXA, wait 12 hours (CrCl ≥30 mL/min) or 24 hours (CrCl <30 mL/min) after the last dose of PRADAXA before initiating treatment with a parenteral anticoagulant.

Monitoring

Unlike coumadin, no INR monitoring is required.

Surgery and Interventions

If possible, discontinue PRADAXA 1 to 2 days (CrCl ≥50 mL/min) or 3 to 5 days (CrCl <50 mL/min) before invasive or surgical procedures because of the increased risk of bleeding. Consider longer times for patients undergoing major surgery, spinal puncture, or placement of a spinal or epidural catheter or port, in whom complete hemostasis may be required. If surgery cannot be delayed, there is an increased risk of bleeding. This risk of bleeding should be weighed against the urgency of intervention. Bleeding risk can be assessed by the ecarin clotting time (ECT). This test is a better marker of the anticoagulant activity of dabigatran than activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), prothrombin time (PT)/INR, or thrombin time (TT). If ECT is not available, the aPTT test provides an approximation of PRADAXA’s anticoagulant activity

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

• Risk of bleeding: PRADAXA can cause serious and, sometimes, fatal bleeding. Promptly evaluate signs and symptoms of blood loss.
• Temporary discontinuation: Avoid lapses in therapy to minimize risk of stroke
• P-gp inducers and inhibitors: Avoid coadministration of rifampin with PRADAXA because of effects on dabigatran exposure

FDA Review of Data From the RE-LY Trial on September 20th, 2010

Design of RE-LY

RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy) was a 18,113 patient randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing unblinded warfarin to blinded dosing of dabigatran (either a dose of 110 mg or 150 mg twice a day) . RE-LY patients included those patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Both patients who were warfarin naive and non-naive were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke and systemic embolism. The median duration of follow-up was 2 years.

FDA Commentary on the Design of RE-LY

An expert external panel was convened by the FDA to review data supporting the clinical use of Pradaxa in the management of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. What follows are areas or questions of active interest on the part of the FDA.

Blinding

The trial was unblinded. The FDA has indicated that it could be difficult if not impossible to garner a superiority claim in the face of an unblinded trial design. Events that are submitted to an independent clinical event committee should be blinded to safeguard the adjudication process. The FDA, however, found that in 20% of patients, there was data in the source documents that could have unblinded the CEC.

Follow-up

Patients who dropped out of the study could be followed up by either telephone contact or in person in clinic. The FDA expressed concern that if a patient is evaluated for a follow-up visit in clinic this may yield a more complete ascertainment of endpoints than if the patient follow-up is conducted by phone. Similar rates of phone follow-up were observed for the three strategies (8%).

Drop outs and Drug Discontinuation

The FDA expressed concern if there are differential rates of drop out in the comparator arms. 96% of subjects completed the trial. 19% of dabigatran patients and 15% of warfarin patients discontinued therapy.

Event Rates for Warfarin

One question the FDA had was whether Warfarin was administered in the optimal fashion (a sufficient time in therapeutic range (TTR) is maintained) and whether the event rates were similar to those of patients enrolled in prior RCTs. The event rates for the warfarin control arm were similar to those of other RCTs.

Time in Therapeutic Range

Time in therapeutic range (TTR) of 64% is not too dissimilar to other RCTs. TTR in RELY is similar to that in SPORTIF III and V. The TTR rate may depend upon frequency of TTR monitoring. A high TTR may reflect a low frequency of INR monitoring, and the TTR must placed in the context of the frequency of INR monitoring.

Quality of Data and Adjudication

The rate of concordance between investigator and CEC reported events was 50% to 85%. In 20% of cases, the CEC could have been unblinded by the source documents.

Efficacy Results

Efficacy Results Published in the New England Journal of Medicine

Among patients treated with warfarin, the primary endpoint event rate was 1.69% per year. Among patients treated with 110 mg of dabigatran, the rate was 1.53% per year(relative risk with dabigatran, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority), and among patients treated with 150 mg of dabigatran the rate was 1.11% per year (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P<0.001 for superiority).

FDA Interpretation of Efficacy Results

The FDA viewed the data as showing that both doses of dabigatran were non-inferior to warfarin and were within the pre-specified hazard ratio margin of 1.38. The 150 mg dose of dabigatran was actually superior to warfarin in the prevention of the primary endpoint. One FDA reviewer was not certain that dabigatran achieved superiority given the 1) open label nature of the study; 2) given the adequate but moderate time in a therapeutic range for warfarin use; and 3) given that this is a single study without replication. A p-value of 0.00125 is often required to establish superiority in a single trial.

There was an increased risk of clinically manifest MI associated with Dabigatran dosing. Although this was of concern, it was inconsistent with the observation that there was no increased risk of revascularization associated with dabigatran. There was no data available regarding study drug discontinuation in the day or days prior to the occurrence of an MI that might link rebound thrombin generation associated with drug discontinuation to an increased risk of MI. There was numerically a higher risk of major bleeds the week before an MI in the dabigatran group, although this number did not reach statistical significance. The excess number of MIs in the dabigatran group was observed months after drug discontinuation, raising questions as to the biologic plausability of the relationship of MI to study drug.

Bleeding Results

Bleeding Results from RE-LY Reported in the New England Journal of Medicine

Among patients treated with Warfarin, the rate of major bleeding was 3.36% per year versus 2.71% per year in the group receiving dabigatran at a dose of 110 mg (P = 0.003) versus 3.11% per year among patients treated with 150 mg of dabigatran (P = 0.31). Warfarin was associated with a 0.38% per year risk of hemorrhagic stroke versus 0.12% per year among patients treated with 110 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001) versus 0.10% per year among patients treated with 150 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001).

FDA Interpretation of Bleeding Results from RE-LY

There was a dose response curve for bleeding associated with dabigatran such that the 150 mg dose was associated with a higher rate of bleeding compared with 110 mg. 150 mg of dabigatran was associated with similar to increased risks of bleeding compared to warfarin while the 110 mg dose was associated with less bleeding than warfarin. In general, the more severe the type of bleeding examined, the lower the risk with dabigatran. While dyspepsia was increased with dabigatran, this was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding. A greater time in TTR was associated with no excess risk of bleeding for warfarin. One FDA reviewer stated that "if a patient is well-controlled on warfarin, then there is no reason to switch to dabigatran."

Net Clinical Benefit (NCB)

The 150 mg dose of dabigatran was associated with a greater reduction in stroke events than an increase in major bleeding events. While the clinical impact of efficacy and safety events must be carefully weighed, there was a net benefit observed for the 150 mg dose of dabigatran. This was true in those patients over the age of 75 as well. The patients over the age of 75 had a higher risk of bleeding, but an even higher risk of efficacy events as well. There was not a benefit of the 110 mg dose in those over the age of 75 and the net benefit of the 110 mg dose was less clear.

Drug Induced Liver Injury (DILI)

Dabigatran was not associated with an excess risks of DILI including Hy's law.

Questions posed by the FDA

Question 1: Was RELY adequately designed?

Unblindinded design was adequate but not optimal. Some argued that an unblinded trial actually parallels the real world practice better. Mortality was still favorable.

Question 2: Were the drug doses appropriate?

Yes.

Question 3: Were events after drug discontinuation handled appropriately?

An ITT analysis for efficacy is the appropriate method with mITT analyses providing supportive information. For safety analyses, mITT may be more informative.

Question 4: Was the trial adequately conducted?

The time in therapeutic range of 65% parallels clinical practice and is adequate for comparison. This rate is similar to other trials. Would not want to compare to unrealistic medical care.

Question 5: Was the follow-up of endpoints adequate?

Yes. Implausible that patients who were missing would have changed the results. Hepatotoxicity data good.

Was dabigatran effective in reducing the primary endpoint?

For stroke yes, non CNS embolism was not sufficiently powered.

Was dabigatran effective at both doses?

Yes was the majority view of the panel, but not by some of the FDA reviewers.

Is the 150 mg dose of dabigatran superior to warfarin?

Yes was the majority view of the panel (with a dissenting view by Dr. Steven Nissen). FDA reviewers were not convinced.

Is 150 mg superior to 110 mg?

Less compelling than the data showing superiority to warfarin. Majority view was yes.

Is there any evidence of hepatic injury

No, although idiosyncratic reactions may take years to appear.

Is there any evidence of less bleeding for the 110 mg dose vs warfarin?

Yes. Mixed reviews as to whether the data split by TTR is of relevance (criticized as a post-randomization event).

Is the risk of bleeding with 150 mg of dabigatran similar to warfarin?

150 mg dabigatran bleeding risk was slightly better but did not reach statistical significance.

Voting Question: Should dabigatran be approved for the reduction of stroke and non CNS embolization for non-valvular atrial fibrillation?

The panel voted 9 to 0 yes.

Should both 110 mg and 150 mg doses be approved?

Mixed views were expressed. 150 mg appears to be the preferred dose. 110 mg may also be appropriate in patients at high risk of bleeding, where the risk of bleeding may outweigh the potential benefit, but it should be realized that this 110 dose is not superior to warfarin with respect to efficacy.

What dose of dabigatran should be approved

There was mixed views on this. 4 Voted in favor of a single dose, 6 voted in favor of approving both doses. Steve Nissen and others recommended approval of both doses. While the primary benefit over warfarin is in the 150 mg dose, people at risk of bleeding may be getting nothing at all and could benefit from the 110 mg dose. Sanjay Kaul, Michael Lincoff and others would approve only the 150 mg dose.

Has the dabigatran dose relationship been adequately defined? Are further studies needed?

Although the lack of monitoring is convenient, some people advocated for PK/PD guided dosing to optimize the risk benefit ratio say in the elderly patients.