Benefits of Pradaxa® maintained in difficult to treat patients with atrial fibrillation and symptomatic heart failure

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

Published in the European Journal of Heart Failure1, results from a new sub-analysis of the RE-LY®* trial demonstrate important benefits of Pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate) over warfarin in difficult-to-treat patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous symptomatic heart failure (HF).

The outcomes in heart failure patients were consistent with the results from the main RE-LY® trial: Pradaxa® 150mg twice daily reduced the risk of stroke including ischaemic stroke with similar rates of major bleeding compared to warfarin and Pradaxa® 110mg twice daily showed similar rates of stroke but significantly reduced major bleeding compared to warfarin. Importantly, both doses of Pradaxa® significantly reduced intracranial as well as total bleeding.

The new results support that Pradaxa® can also be beneficial for patients with multiple co-morbidities and further reinforce the consistent efficacy and safety profile of Pradaxa® that was shown in the main trial and various previous RE-LY® sub-analyses in several other patient subgroups, including patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Atrial fibrillation and heart failure frequently coexist and are known to worsen patient prognoses. Heart failure is a specific risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation patients, therefore these patients especially need anticoagulant treatment,” said Dr. Jorge Ferreira, Cardiologist, Hospital Santa Cruz, Lisbon, Portugal. “However, anticoagulation with a vitamin-K-antagonist in these patients is often associated with poor INR control. This results in more challenging management and impacts the overall efficacy and safety of VKA treatment.”

From a total of 18,113 patients with non-valvular AF participating in the landmark RE-LY® trial, 4,904 patients (27%) had previous symptomatic HF.In the sub-analysis comparing the main outcomes of stroke and systemic embolism as well as major bleeding between patients with and without previous symptomatic heart failure, the results were consistent with no statistically significant differences (p-values for interaction) between the two patient groups.These results show that Pradaxa® is a valuable treatment alternative for patients who suffer from both atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

“These new results from RE-LY® highlight the value of Pradaxa® also for those atrial fibrillation patients that are traditionally considered difficult to treat and have multiple co-morbidities,” commented Professor Klaus Dugi, Corporate Senior Vice President Medicine, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Pradaxa® 150mg bid is the only novel oral anticoagulant, study of which has shown a significant reduction in the incidence of ischaemic strokes in patients with non-valvular AF compared to warfarin (67% median time in therapeutic range9), offering a relative risk reduction of 25%.2,3 Nine out of ten strokes in AF patients are ischemic strokes,(10) which can result in irreversible neurological injury with profound long-term consequences such as paralysis or inability to move one’s limbs or formulate speech.

Furthermore in the main RE-LY® trial, Pradaxa® 150mg twice daily provided a 36% reduction in the overall risk of stroke versus warfarin, demonstrating superior protection.Pradaxa® 110mg twice daily, indicated for certain patients, was as effective as warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism.Both doses of Pradaxa® were associated with significantly lower total, intracranial and life-threatening bleeding compared to warfarin.Pradaxa® 150mg twice daily showed a similar risk of major bleeds versus warfarin while Pradaxa® 110mg twice daily demonstrated a significantly lower risk.The RE-LY® trial was performed in PROBE design, i.e. prospective, randomized, open-label with blinded endpoint evaluation.

Pradaxa® is already widely approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patient with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and for primary prevention of VTE following total hip replacement or total knee replacement surgery.(9) Over 1.6 million patient years of experience in all licensed indications in over 100 countries support Pradaxa® as the leading novel oral anticoagulant.

About Pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate)

Pradaxa® is approved in over 100 countries worldwide.It is licensed for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement surgery.

Pradaxa®, a direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI),13 was the first of a new generation of direct oral anticoagulants targeting a high unmet medical need in the prevention and treatment of acute and chronic thromboembolic diseases.

Potent antithrombotic effects are achieved with direct thrombin inhibitors by specifically blocking the activity of thrombin (both free and clot-bound), the central enzyme in the process responsible for clot (thrombus) formation. In contrast to vitamin-K antagonists, which variably act via different coagulation factors, dabigatran etexilate provides effective, predictable and  anticoagulation with a low potential for drug-drug interactions and no drug-food interactions, without the need for routine coagulation monitoring or dose adjustment.

About RE-LY®

RE-LY® (Randomized Evaluation of Long term anticoagulant therapY) was a global, phase III, PROBE (prospective, randomized, open-label with blinded endpoint evaluation) trial of 18,113 patients enrolled in over 900 centres in 44 countries designed to compare two fixed doses of the oral direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran (110mg and 150mg twice daily) each administered in a blinded manner, with open label warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0, median TTR 67%9). Patients were followed-up in the study for a median of 2 years with a minimum of 1 year follow-up.

The primary endpoint of the trial was incidence of stroke (including haemorrhagic) or systemic embolism. Secondary outcome measures included all-cause death, incidence of stroke (including haemorrhagic), systemic embolism, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, and vascular death (including death from bleeding).

Compared to warfarin, dabigatran etexilate showed in the trial:

Significant reduction in the risk of stroke and systemic embolism – including ischaemic strokes with dabigatran etexilate 150mg twice daily

Similar rates of stroke/systemic embolism with dabigatran etexilate 110mg twice daily (110mg indicated for certain patients)

Significantly lower major bleeding events with dabigatran etexilate 110mg twice daily

Significantly lower life threatening and intracranial bleeding with both doses

Significant reduction in vascular mortality with dabigatran etexilate 150mg twice daily.

About the new RE-LY® sub-analysis

From a total of 18,113 patients with non-valvular AF participating in the landmark RE-LY® trial, 4,904 patients (27%) had previous symptomatic HF.(2,3) Despite the challenges of VKA therapy in these patients, the heart failure patients included in the RE-LY® trial spent 63.8% of their time within the therapeutic range (INR 2.0-3.0). In the sub-analysis, the results were consistent between patients with and without HF, showing that Pradaxa® is a valuable treatment alternative for patients with AF and HF:

Annual rates of stroke and systemic embolism were 1.44% per year for Pradaxa® 150mg twice daily and 1.90% per year for Pradaxa® 110mg twice daily versus 1.92% per year for warfarin

Annual rates of major bleeding were 3.10% per year for Pradaxa® 150mg twice daily and 3.26% per year for Pradaxa® 110mg twice daily versus 3.90% per year for warfarin

Rates of intracranial haemorrhage, one of the most devastating complications of anticoagulation,14 were 0.26% per year for Pradaxa® 150mg twice daily and 0.22% per year for Pradaxa® 110mg twice daily versus 0.65% per year for warfarin

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (AF)

AF is the most common sustained heart rhythm condition,with one in four adults over the age of 4015 developing the condition in their lifetime. People with AF are more likely to experience blood clots, which increases the risk of stroke by five-fold.Up to three million people worldwide suffer strokes related to AF each year.Strokes due to AF tend to be severe, with an increased likelihood of death (20%), and disability (60%).

Ischaemic strokes are the most common type of AF-related stroke, accounting for 92% of strokes and frequently leading to severe debilitation.Appropriate anticoagulation therapy can help to prevent many types of AF-related strokes and improve overall patient outcomes. Pradaxa® 150mg twice daily is the only novel oral anticoagulant, for which its pivotal trial vs. warfarin has shown a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction of both ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes. Additionally, treatment with Pradaxa® is associated with substantially lower rates of both fatal and non-fatal intracranial haemorrhage, one of the most devastating complications of anticoagulation therapy.

Worldwide, AF is an extremely costly public health problem, with treatment costs equating to $6.65 billion in the US and over €6.2 billion across Europe each year. Given AF-related strokes tend to be more severe, this results in higher direct medical patient costs annually.The total societal burden of AF-related stroke reaches €13.5 billion per year in the European Union alone.

About Boehringer Ingelheim

The Boehringer Ingelheim group is one of the world’s 20 leading pharmaceutical companies. Headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany, it operates globally with 140 affiliates and more than 46,000 employees. Since it was founded in 1885, the family-owned company has been committed to researching, developing, manufacturing and marketing novel medications of high therapeutic value for human and veterinary medicine.

As a central element of its culture, Boehringer Ingelheim pledges to act socially responsible. Involvement in social projects, caring for employees and their families, and providing equal opportunities for all employees form the foundation of the global operations. Mutual cooperation and respect, as well as environmental protection and sustainability are intrinsic factors in all of Boehringer Ingelheim’s endeavors.

In 2012, Boehringer Ingelheim achieved net sales of about 14.7 billion euro. R&D expenditure in the business area Prescription Medicines corresponds to 22.5% of its net sales.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »