Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Research Articles

Typical profile of a patient with atrial fibrillation in the Russian population based on medical registries. A systematic review

Aim. To compare clinical and anamnestic characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) included in three large international stu­dies assessing the efficacy and safety of therapy with direct oral anti­coagu­lants, with the profile of a typical Russian patient with AF in clinical practi­ce, established by medical registries in the Russian Federation (RF).Material and methods. A systematic review of scientific publications was con­ducted. The search was conducted in the E-library and Google Scholar databases. Publications from 8 registries of patients with AF, con­ducted in the Russian Federation from 2012 to 2023, were found, which present the clinical and anamnestic characteristics of patients. All studies included in the analysis meet the generally accepted require­ments for medical registries. The systematic review protocol was pre­viously recorded in the PROSPERO electronic database (CRD42024512425).Results. A Russian patient with AF is a patient with a large number of cardiovascular pathologies and a high risk of thromboembolic events. According to the analysis, Russian patient with AF has an average age of ~70 years. Most patients have a diagnosis of hypertension, heart failure, while from one third to half of patients have a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. From 20 to 30% of patients have a history of myocardial infarction and every fifth patient has type 2 diabetes.Conclusion. In all countries around the world, including the Russian Fe­deration, for many years, medical registries have been one of the main sources of information on the characteristics of patients with AF and the disease course. They can supplement the available data from randomized clinical trials with real-world data. Comparison of clinical and anamnestic characteristics of patients in randomized clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants with characteristics of patients in the Russian registries shows that patients included in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K An­tagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fib­rillation (ROCKET AF trial) were most similar to Russian patients with AF.

Impact of patient selection in clinical trials: application of ROCKET AF and ARISTOTLE criteria in GARFIELD-AF

BackgroundThe extent to which differences in results from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) and Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition...

Assessment of Days Alive Out of Hospital as a Possible End Point in Trials of Stroke Prevention for Atrial Fibrillation: A ROCKET AF Analysis.

Days alive out of hospital (DAOH) is an objective and patient-centered net benefit end point. There are no assessments of DAOH in clinical trials of interventions for atrial fibrillation (AF), and it is not known whether this end point is of clinical utility in these populations. ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) was an international double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial that compared rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk for stroke. We assessed DAOH using investigator-reported event data for up to 12 months after randomization in ROCKET AF. We assessed DAOH overall, by treatment group, and by subgroup, including age, sex, and comorbidities, using Poisson regression. The mean±SD number of days dead was 7.3±41.2, days hospitalized was 1.2±7.2, and mean DAOH was 350.7±56.2, with notable left skew. Patients with comorbidities had fewer DAOH overall. There were no differences in DAOH by treatment arm, with mean DAOH of 350.6±56.5 for those randomized to rivaroxaban and 350.7±55.8 for those randomized to warfarin (P=0.86). A sensitivity analysis found no difference in DAOH not disabled with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (DAOH not disabled, 349.2±59.5 days and 349.1 days±59.3 days, respectively, P=0.88). DAOH did not identify a treatment difference between patients randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin. This may be driven in part by the low overall event rates in atrial fibrillation anticoagulation trials, which leads to substantial left skew in measures of DAOH.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses From COMBINE AF.

There is uncertainty surrounding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with kidney dysfunction. Using the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database (data from RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), we performed an individual patient-level network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs versus warfarin across continuous creatinine clearance (CrCl). A multivariable Cox model including treatment-by-CrCl interaction with random effects was fitted to estimate hazard ratios for paired treatment strategies (standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin). Outcomes included stroke and systemic embolism (S/SE), major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and death. Among 71 683 patients (mean age, 70.6±9.4 years; 37.3% female; median follow-up, 23.1 months), the mean CrCl was 75.5±30.5 mL/min. The incidence of S/SE, major bleeding, ICH, and death increased significantly with worsening kidney function. Across continuous CrCl values down to 25 mL/min, the hazard of major bleeding did not change for patients randomized to standard-dose DOACs compared with those randomized to warfarin (Pinteraction=0.61). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of ICH at CrCl values <122 mL/min, with a trend for increased safety with DOAC as CrCl decreased (6.2% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of S/SE with CrCl <87 mL/min, with a significant treatment-by-CrCl effect (4.8% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.01). The hazard of death was significantly lower with standard-dose DOACs for patients with CrCl <77 mL/min, with a trend toward increasing benefit with lower CrCl (2.1% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Use of lower-dose rather than standard-dose DOACs was not associated with a significant difference in incident bleeding or ICH in patients with reduced kidney function but was associated with a higher incidence4 of death and S/SE. Standard-dose DOACs are safer and more effective than warfarin down to a CrCl of at least 25 mL/min. Lower-dose DOACs do not significantly lower the incidence of bleeding or ICH compared with standard-dose DOACs but are associated with a higher incidence of S/SE and death. These findings support the use of standard-dose DOACs over warfarin in patients with kidney dysfunction.

Anticoagulant therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a comprehensive risk management

Effective secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) implies long-term oral anticoagulant therapy. It has been proven that the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is more effective, safer and more convenient for a patient than vitamin K antagonists. However, the selection of most effective and safe DOAC represented without direct comparisons in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot be reliable due to the inevitable differences in the cohorts of studied patients and differences in methodological approaches. It should be noted that the population of patients in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) in terms of basic characteristics was as close as possible to the Russian population of AF patients compared with study populations of other DOACs. Of great importance for ensuring the overall benefit from DOACs is the possibility of comprehensive protection of the elderly patient with AF. This approach, along with the risk of recurrent stroke and possible bleeding events, takes into account other risks that can significantly worsen the prognosis and health of a patient with AF, such as the risk of coronary events, impairment of renal function, and cognitive impairment that can lead to low adherence to treatment. Rivaroxaban therapy makes it possible to simultaneously reduce the listed risks, providing comprehensive protection for an elderly patient with AF.

Termination Based on Event Accrual in Per Protocol Versus Intention to Treat in the ROCKET AF Trial

BackgroundIn event‐driven clinical trials, study termination is based on accrual of a target number of primary efficacy events. For noninferiority trials in which superiority is conditionally examined, the ideal cohort in which to track event accrual is unclear. We used data from the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial to determine the effect of primary efficacy‐event tracking in the per‐protocol cohort during the on‐treatment period versus the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) cohort during the ITT period.Methods and ResultsROCKET AF was terminated after accruing 429 primary efficacy events (stroke or systemic embolism) in the per‐protocol cohort during the on‐treatment period for noninferiority. We identified the date on which 429 events occurred in the ITT cohort during the ITT period. We performed noninferiority and superiority analyses based on hypothetical study termination on this date. ROCKET AF would have terminated 226 days earlier if events were tracked during the ITT period. Similar to the main trial findings, rivaroxaban would have met noninferiority versus warfarin for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62–0.96; P<0.001). In contrast to the main trial findings, rivaroxaban would have met superiority for the primary efficacy end point (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68–0.99; P=0.038). In both termination scenarios, rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and similar risk of other safety end points.ConclusionsClinical trial termination based on event accrual in the ITT cohort versus the per‐protocol cohort may have important implications on trial results depending on rates of study drug discontinuation and event rates off treatment.

Periprocedural Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are surpassing warfarin as the anticoagulant of choice for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. DOAC outcomes in elective periprocedural settings have not been well elucidated and remain a source of concern for clinicians. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the periprocedural safety and efficacy of DOACs versus warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We reviewed the literature for data from phase III randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs with warfarin in the periprocedural period among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Substudies from 4 trials (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibitor Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for the Prevention of Stroke in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE-AF [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor xA Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation]) were included in the meta-analysis. DOACs as a group and warfarin were compared in terms of the 30-day pooled risk for stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and death, according to whether the study drug was interrupted or not periprocedurally. The overall relative risk (RR) was estimated with a random-effects model. The I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity in RR among the studies. In the uninterrupted anticoagulant strategy, there were no differences in the rates of stroke/systemic embolism (pooled risk, 0.6% [29 events/4519 procedures] versus 1.1% [31/2971]; RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.18) and death (1.4% versus 1.8%; RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12) between DOACs and warfarin and significantly fewer major bleeding events (2.0% versus 3.3%; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82) with DOACs compared to warfarin. Under an interrupted strategy, there was no significant difference between DOACs versus warfarin for stroke/systemic embolism (0.4% [41/9260] versus 0.5% [31/7168]; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59-1.55), major bleeding (2.1% versus 2.0%; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.30), and death (0.7% versus 0.6%; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.76-2.04). The studies were homogeneous ( I2=0.0%) for all calculated pooled associations except for the RR of death in the interrupted strategy ( I2=26.3%). The short-term safety and efficacy of DOACs and warfarin are not different in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation periprocedurally. Under an uninterrupted anticoagulation strategy, DOACs are associated with a 38% lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Bleeding Risk in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Analysis From the ROCKET AF Trial.

BackgroundThere is concern that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) substantially increase bleeding risk in patients taking anticoagulants.Methods and ResultsWe studied 737 patients taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Embolism and Stroke Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. These patients were propensity score matched 1:1 to 737 patients not taking SSRIs. The primary outcome measure was major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding events, the principal safety outcome in ROCKET AF. Over a mean 1.6 years of follow‐up, the rate of major/nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was 18.57 events/100 patient‐years for SSRI users versus 16.84 events/100 patient‐years for matched comparators, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.43). The aHRs were similar in patients taking rivaroxaban (aHR 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82–1.51]) and those taking warfarin (aHR 1.21 [95% CI, 0.91–1.60]). For the rarer outcome of major bleeding, the aHR for SSRI users versus those not taking SSRIs was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.62–2.06) for rivaroxaban; for warfarin, the aHR was higher, at 1.58 (95% CI, 0.96–2.60) but not statistically significantly elevated.ConclusionsWe found no significant increase in bleeding risk when SSRIs were combined with anticoagulant therapy, although there was a suggestion of increased bleeding risk with SSRIs added to warfarin. While physicians should be vigilant regarding bleeding risk, our results provide reassurance that SSRIs can be safely added to anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Observations From the ROCKET AF Trial.

BackgroundAlthough implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients receiving warfarin is well studied, limited data are available on the use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in this setting.Methods and ResultsUsing data from Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) (n=14 264), we compared baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin who did and did not undergo CIED implantation or revision. In this post‐hoc, postrandomization, on‐treatment analysis, only the first intervention per patient was analyzed. During a median follow‐up of 2.2 years, 453 patients (242 rivaroxaban group; 211 warfarin group) underwent de novo CIED implantation (64.2%) or revision procedures (35.8%). Patients who received CIEDs were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have past myocardial infarction, but had similar stroke risk compared to patients who did not receive CIEDs. Most patients who received a device had study drug interrupted for the procedure and did not receive bridging anticoagulation. During the 30‐day postprocedural period, 11 patients (4.55%) in the rivaroxaban group experienced bleeding complications compared with 15 (7.13%) in the warfarin group. Thromboembolic complications occurred in 3 patients (1.26%) in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (0.48%) in the warfarin group. Event rates were too low for formal hypothesis testing.ConclusionsBleeding and thromboembolic events were low in both rivaroxaban‐ and warfarin‐treated patients. Periprocedural use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in CIED implantation requires further study in prospective, randomized trials.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Patients Taking Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Atrial Fibrillation (from the ROCKET AF Trial)

Non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (non-DHP CCBs) possess combined P-glycoprotein and moderate CYP3A4 inhibition, which may lead to increased exposure of medications that are substrates for these metabolic pathways, such as rivaroxaban. We evaluated the use and outcomes of non-DHP CCBs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF). We assessed clinical outcomes in patients who received non-DHP CCBs and the impact on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. Stroke or noncentral nervous system (CNS) systemic embolism (SE), major or nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding, all-cause death, and major bleeding were compared according to non-DHP CCB use. At randomization, 1,308 patients (9.2%) were taking a non-DHP CCB. They were more likely to be women, have diabetes and COPD, and less likely to have heart failure and had a lower mean CHADS2 score (3.3 vs 3.5). Non-DHP CCB use was not associated with an increased risk of stroke/non-CNS SE (p= 0.11) or the composite outcome of NMCR or major bleeding (p= 0.087). Non-DHP CCB use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04) and intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted hazard ratio 2.84, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.29). No significant difference was observed in the primary efficacy (stroke or non-CNS SE; adjusted interaction p value= 0.38) or safety outcome (NMCR or major bleeding; adjusted interaction p value= 0.14) between rivaroxaban and warfarin with non-DHP CCB use. In conclusion, although the overall use of non-DHP CCBs was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, the use was not associated with a significant change in the safety or efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin observed in ROCKET AF.

Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Active Cancer

Rivaroxaban is broadly used for the primary prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in the general population with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is little published evidence on the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban for AF in patients with active cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in patients with active cancer and AF. The use of rivaroxaban in patients with cancer at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is monitored in the setting of a Quality Assessment Initiative. Patients with active cancer and AF, treated with rivaroxaban from January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016, are included in this analysis. Clinical end points were defined a priori and assessed through text searches of medical records. A total of 163 evaluable patients were identified. After adjusting for competing risks, the estimated 1-year cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke was 1.4% (95% CI 0% to 3.4%) and major bleeding was 1.2% (95% CI 0% to 2.9%). The risk of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding leading to discontinuation of anticoagulation at 1year was 14.0% (95% CI 4.2% to 22.7%). The cumulative incidence of mortality was 22.6% (95% CI 12.2% to 31.7%) at 1 year, reflecting an active cancer population. One patient died after developing an acute ischemic cerebrovascular insult. In conclusion, the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban treatment for nonvalvular AF in patients with active cancer is comparable to the results of the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF) study in the general population.

Relation of Risk of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation to Body Mass Index (from Patients Treated With Rivaroxaban and Warfarin in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation Trial)

We investigated stroke outcomes in normal weight (body mass index [BMI] 18.50 to 24.99kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.00 to 29.99kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥30kg/m2) patients with atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban and warfarin. We compared the incidence of stroke and systemic embolic events as well as bleeding events in normal weight (n=3,289), overweight (n= 5,535), and obese (n= 5,206) patients in a post hoc analysis of the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation trial. Stroke and systemic embolic event rates per 100 patient-years were 2.93 in the normal weight group (reference group), 2.28 in the overweight group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, p= 0.04) and 1.88 in the obese group (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, p<0.001). The risk of stroke was statistically significantly lower for obese patients with BMI ≥35 than that for normal weight patients in both the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups (rivaroxaban: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.96, p= 0.033; warfarin: HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74, p <0.001). In conclusion, in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with anticoagulant therapy, increased BMI was associated with decreased stroke risk. Warfarin and the novel anticoagulant rivaroxaban are effective in stroke prevention in all subgroups of obese patients.

Primary and key secondary results from the ROCKET AF trial, and their implications on clinical practice.

The safety and efficacy of the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban were studied in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF trial). A number of subanalyses of the ROCKET AF trial have subsequently analyzed the use of rivaroxaban in special patient populations. The outcomes of the ROCKET AF trial were reviewed. The use of rivaroxaban in higher risk populations, as determined by the presence of co-morbidities included in the CHADS2 criteria, was analyzed. Requirements for dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment and in East Asian patients were described. Finally, clinical management challenges, including interruptions in therapy, drug discontinuation, management of bleeding events, drug interactions, and management of patients requiring cardioversion/ablation were reviewed. Rivaroxaban is efficacious in high-risk populations, including elderly patients, patients with diabetes, heart failure, history of stroke, prior myocardial infarction, or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Patients with PAD have a higher risk of bleeding with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. East Asian populations do not require a dose adjustment for rivaroxaban, while a reduced dose of 15 mg daily is required for patients with moderate renal impairment. Rivaroxaban remains effective with temporary interruptions in therapy and in patients requiring cardioversion/ablation. Rates of major bleeding and subsequent outcomes were similar in patients on warfarin and rivaroxaban, although rates of gastrointestinal bleeding were higher with rivaroxaban. Concurrent use of antiarrhythmic therapy was not associated with adverse outcomes. Rivaroxaban represents an efficacious alternative to warfarin in high-risk patients with AF. Dose adjustment is required for patients with moderate renal impairment. Rivaroxaban can be used safely in a number of challenging clinical management scenarios although the concurrent use of amiodarone requires more study.

Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Clinical Practice: Focus on Rivaroxaban in Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Despite direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have overcome the most relevant limitations of vitamin K antagonists, many patients with atrial fibrillation are not receiving the appropriate anticoagulant therapy. In addition, when patients are anticoagulated with DOACs, some of them are not taking the dose recommended in the summary of product characteristics. This may be related, at least in part, to the concern about the applicability of findings from randomized clinical trials to real-life patients. In this context, performing studies in daily clinical practice to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs in real-world setting is mandatory. The aim of this review is to update the current evidence regarding safety of rivaroxaban in clinical practice. The Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF) showed that rivaroxaban was at least as effective as warfarin for preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with similar rates of major bleeding but with lesser risk of intracranial and fatal bleedings. Data from noninterventional studies and registries have confirmed the good results of ROCKET-AF. Even more, rates of bleeding may be inferior in real-life patients, since they have a lower risk profile than those included in ROCKET-AF.

Use of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy and Patient Outcomes in Those Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The ROCKET AF Trial.

The authors assessed the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation). The frequency, patterns, and outcomes when adding DAPT to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in the setting of PCI in patients with AF are largely unknown. The study population included all patients in the treatment group of the ROCKET AF trial divided by the receipt of PCI during follow-up. Clinical characteristics, PCI frequency, and rates of DAPT were reported. Clinical outcomes were adjudicated independently as part of the trial. Among 14,171 patients, 153 (1.1%) underwent PCI during a median 806 days of follow-up. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were significantly less likely to undergo PCI compared with warfarin-treated patients (61 vs. 92; p=0.01). Study drug was continued during PCI in 81% of patients. Long-term DAPT (≥30 days) was used in 37% andsingle antiplatelet therapy in 34%. A small number switched from DAPT to monotherapy within 30 days of PCI (n=19 [12.3%]) and 15% of patients received no antiplatelet therapy after PCI. Rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding events were high in post-PCI patients (4.5/100 patient-years and 10.2/100 patient-years) in both treatment groups. In patients with AF at moderate to high risk for stroke, PCI occurred in<1% per year. DAPT was used in a variable manner, with the majority of patients remaining on study drug after PCI. Rates of both thrombotic and bleeding events were high after PCI, highlighting the need for studies to determine the optimal antithrombotic therapy.

Use of concomitant aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation: Findings from the ROCKET AF trial

We aimed to investigate the relationship between aspirin use and clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF), in particular, those with known coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients in ROCKET AF, comparing rivaroxaban and warfarin, were analyzed. Aspirin use was assessed at baseline. Stroke and systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, death, and major or nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding were compared between groups. Multivariable modeling was done adjusting for baseline risk factors. A total of 5,205 (36.5%) patients were receiving aspirin at baseline (mean dose 99.2mg); 30.6% of those had known CAD. Patients receiving aspirin were more likely to have prior myocardial infarction (22% vs 14%; P<.001) and heart failure (68% vs 59%; P<.001). Relative efficacy of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was similar with and without aspirin use for both stroke/systemic embolism (P=.95 for interaction), and major or NMCR bleeding (P=.76 for interaction). After adjustment, aspirin use was associated with similar rates of stroke/systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37; P=.094) but higher rates of all-cause death (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.13-1.42; P<.0001) and major or NMCR bleeding (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.21-1.43; P<.0001). There was a significant interaction between no CAD at baseline and aspirin for all-cause death (P=.009). Aspirin use at baseline was associated with an increased risk for bleeding and all-cause death in ROCKET AF, a risk most pronounced in patients without known CAD. Although these findings may reflect unmeasured clinical factors, further investigation is warranted to determine optimal aspirin use in patients with AF.

Controversy Surrounding ROCKET-AF: A Call for Transparency, But Should We Be Changing Practice?

Controversy Surrounding ROCKET-AF: A Call for Transparency, But Should We Be Changing Practice?

Polypharmacy and the Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often take multiple medications. We examined characteristics and compared adjusted outcomes between rivaroxaban and warfarin according to number of concomitant baseline medications and the presence of combined cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitors in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study. At baseline, 5101 patients (36%) were on 0 to 4 medications, 7298 (51%) were on 5 to 9, and 1865 (13%) were on ≥ 10. Although polypharmacy was not associated with higher risk of stroke or non-central nervous system embolism (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 for ≥ 10 versus 0-4 medications; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.38), it was associated with higher risks of the combined end point of stroke, non-central nervous system embolism, vascular death, or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41 for ≥ 10 versus 0-4 medications; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.68) and nonmajor clinically relevant or major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47 for ≥ 10 versus 0-4 medications; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.65). There was no significant difference in primary efficacy (adjusted interaction P=0.99) or safety outcomes (adjusted interaction P=0.87) between treatment groups by number of medications. Patients treated with 0 to 4 medications had lower rates of major bleeding with rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.95; interaction P=0.0074). There was no evidence of differential outcomes in those treated with ≥ 1 combined cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitors. In a population of patients with atrial fibrillation, two thirds were on ≥ 5 medications. Increasing medication use was associated with higher risk of bleeding but not stroke. Rivaroxaban was tolerated across complex patients on multiple medications. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

ROCKET AF adds more concerns about Digoxin safety in patients with atrial fibrillation

In a recent article in the Journal, we have reviewed the adverse cardiovascular outcomes observed with digoxin use in the PALLAS study.1 The PALLAS study was designed to determine if dronedarone would reduce major vascular events in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF).2 However the study was stopped early because of safety reasons, as a significant number of patients on the dronedarone arm reached the co-primary end point composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular death. Data sub-analyses suggested that digoxin-dronedarone interaction was responsible for the higher arrhythmic death rate observed in the trial. These observations are consistent with several other studies that demonstrate the potential hazard of the use of digoxin in heart failure and/or atrial fibrillation.A more recent article published in the Lancet studied the use and outcomes of digoxin in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) trial.3 The investigators concluded that digoxin treatment was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, vascular death, and sudden death in patients with AF.

Digoxin use in patients with atrial fibrillation and adverse cardiovascular outcomes: a retrospective analysis of the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF)

Digoxin is a widely used drug for ventricular rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), despite a scarcity of randomised trial data. We studied the use and outcomes of digoxin in patients in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF). For this retrospective analysis, we included and classified patients from ROCKET AF on the basis of digoxin use at baseline and during the study. Patients in ROCKET AF were recruited from 45 countries and had AF and risk factors putting them at moderate-to-high risk of stroke, with or without heart failure. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for baseline characteristics and drugs to investigate the association of digoxin with all-cause mortality, vascular death, and sudden death. ROCKET AF was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00403767. In 14,171 randomly assigned patients, digoxin was used at baseline in 5239 (37%). Patients given digoxin were more likely to be female (42% vs 38%) and have a history of heart failure (73% vs 56%), diabetes (43% vs 38%), and persistent AF (88% vs 77%; p<0·0001 for each comparison). After adjustment, digoxin was associated with increased all-cause mortality (5·41 vs 4·30 events per 100 patients-years; hazard ratio 1·17; 95% CI 1·04-1·32; p=0·0093), vascular death (3·55 vs 2·69 per 100 patient-years; 1·19; 1·03-1·39, p=0·0201), and sudden death (1·68 vs 1·12 events per 100 patient-years; 1·36; 1·08-1·70, p=0·0076). Digoxin treatment was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, vascular death, and sudden death in patients with AF. This association was independent of other measured prognostic factors, and although residual confounding could account for these results, these data show the possibility of digoxin having these effects. A randomised trial of digoxin in treatment of AF patients with and without heart failure is needed. Janssen Research & Development and Bayer HealthCare AG.