Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tecarfarin, a novel vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant

Summary

Tecarfarin is a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) with reduced propensity for drug interactions. To evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and safety of tecarfarin, we performed single ascending dose (SAD) (n=66), multiple ascending dose (MAD) (n=43), and tecarfarin versus warfarin (n=28) studies in human volunteers. In the SAD, tecarfarin was administered to 5 of 6 subjects (1 received placebo) in each of 11 cohorts. AUC_0-∞ exhibited linearity and dose proportionality. Elimination T1/2 ranged from 87–136 hours (h) across all doses. In the MAD, tecarfarin was administered to 5 of 6 volunteers in each of 7 cohorts. The starting dose was continued until the subject’s INR reached the target range (TR) of 1.7 to 2.0. Dosing was down-titrated if the TR was achieved. Elimination T1/2 ranged from 107–140 h. Doses <10 mg had insignificant effect on INR. Higher doses raised INRs and required down-titration to maintain the TR. Steady state INR dosing was 10–20 mg. INR declined promptly after discontinuation. In the comparative study, subjects received tecarfarin or warfarin and dose titrated to a TR of 1.5–2.0. Mean dose after TR was achieved was 13.9 mg (range 10.0–25.5 mg) for tecarfarin and 5.3 mg (range 2.5–9.0 mg) for warfarin. At similar INR levels, the concentration of coagulation factors II, VII, IX, and X were similar for tecarfarin and warfarin. Tecarfarin was tolerated well without serious adverse events in all three studies.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.

Keywords

Tecarfarin - Warfarin - VKA - Pharmacokinetics - pharmacodynamics

• References

• 1 Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS. et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2006; 114: e257-e354
• 2 Singer DE, Albers GW, Dalen JE. et al. American College of Chest Physicians: Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008; 133: 546S-592S
• 3 Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E. et al. American College of Chest Physicians: Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008; 133: 160S-198S
• 4 Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N. et al. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2294-2303
• 5 Ageno W, Gallus AS, Wittkowsky A. et al. Oral anticoagulant therapy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2014; 141: e44S-88S
• 6 Holbrook A, Schulman S, Witt DM. et. al. Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: e152S-84S
• 7 Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N. et al. Emergency hospitalisations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 2002-2012
• 8 Yang J, Chen Y, Li X. et al. Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes on the risk of hemorrhagic complications in warfarin-treated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168: 4234-4243
• 9 Jaffer IH, Stafford AR, Fredenburgh JC. et al. Dabigatran is Less Effective than Warfarin at Attenuating Mechanical Heart Valve-Induced Thrombin Generation. J Amer Heart Assoc 2015; 4: e002322
• 10 Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Brueckmann M. et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1206-1214
• 11 Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO. et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Amer Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 57e-185
• 12 Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F. et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2451-2496
• 13 Bavisotto LM, Ellis DJ, Milner PG. et al. Tecarfarin, a novel vitamin K reductase antagonist, is not affected by CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 inhibition following concomitant administration of fluconazole in healthy participants. J Clin Pharmacol 2011; 51: 561-574
• 14 Ellis DJ, Usman MH, Milner PG. et al. The first evaluation of a novel vitamin K antagonist, tecarfarin (ATI-5923), in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2009; 120: 1029-1035
• 15 Whitlock RP, Fordyce CB, Midei MG. et al. A randomised, double blind comparison of tecarfarin, a novel vitamin K antagonist, with warfarin. Thromb Haemost 2016; 116: 1-10
• 16 Kakkar AK, Mueller I, Bassand JP. et al. Risk profiles and antithrombotic treatment of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: perspectives from the international, observational, prospective GARFIELD registry. PloS one 2013; 8: e63479
• 17 Maddison J, Somogyi AA, Jensen BP. et al. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single dose (R)- and (S)-warfarin administered separately and together: relationship to VKORC1 genotype. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 75: 208-216
• 18 Hosokawa M. Structure and catalytic properties of carboxylesterase isozymes involved in metabolic activation of prodrugs. Molecules 2008; 13: 412-431
• 19 Imai T. Human carboxylesterase isozymes: catalytic properties and rational drug design. Drug Metabol Pharmacokinet 2006; 21: 173-185
• 20 Taketani M, Shii M, Ohura K. et al. Carboxylesterase in the liver and small intestine of experimental animals and human. Life Sci 2007; 81: 924-932
• 21 Laizure SC, Herring V, Hu Z. et al. The role of human carboxylesterases in drug metabolism: have we overlooked their importance? J Human Pharmacol Drug Ther . 2013; 33: 210-222
• 22 Benet LZ, Hoener BA. Changes in plasma protein binding have little clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2002; 71: 115-121
• 23 Rolan PE. Plasma protein binding displacement interactions-why are they still regarded as clinically important?. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 37: 125-128