Results of the COMPASS Trial Analyzed Using Win Ratio Compared With Conventional Analytic Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Win ratio (WR) is a newer analytic approach for trials with composite end points that accounts for the relative importance of individual components. Our objective was to compare the results of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial analyzed using WR with those obtained using conventional statistical approaches. METHODS: We used an unmatched WR analysis for first and total (first plus recurrent) events to examine effects of rivaroxaban with aspirin and rivaroxaban alone vs aspirin alone on primary efficacy (cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction), safety (modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding), and net clinical benefit (primary efficacy plus fatal or critical organ bleeding) end points. We compared the WR results with those obtained using the Cox proportional hazards regression model for first events and Anderson-Gill method for total events. We calculated the win difference to estimate absolute treatment effects. RESULTS: The WR approach produced results consistent with those obtained using conventional statistical methods for the primary composite end point (first event: WR, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.52]; 1/Cox hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.52]; total [first plus recurrent] events: WR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.14-1.52]; 1/Anderson-Gill hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.54]) as well as for main safety and net clinical benefit end points. The absolute benefits of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone calculated using the win difference were greatest in those with multiple high-risk features. CONCLUSIONS: Reanalysis of the COMPASS trial results using WR produced results that were consistent with those obtained using conventional statistical approaches. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01776424.

Perioperative management and outcomes in patients receiving low-dose rivaroxaban and/or aspirin: a subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial.

BACKGROUND: No study has investigated the perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients who are receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 81 to 100 mg daily. OBJECTIVE: To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. METHODS: Subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial was performed to assess perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day plus ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA 100 mg daily. Patients studied required a surgery/procedure during the trial. The study outcomes, which included myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, acute limb ischemia, bleeding, and death, were assessed according to treatment allocation. RESULTS: There were 2632 patients studied (mean age, 68 years; 80% male) who had a surgery/procedure, comprising percutaneous coronary interventions (∼43%), carotid or other arterial angioplasty (∼15%), pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation (∼9%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (∼7%). Perioperative study drug management varied, with about one-third of patients not interrupting study drug and the remainder interrupting it between 1 and ≥10 days preprocedure. The incidences of adverse outcomes across treatment groups were 12.7% to 15.3% for myocardial ischemia, 0.8% to 1.2% for stroke, 0.1% to 0.2% for venous thromboembolism, and 3.1% to 4.2% for any bleeding. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome rates across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In patients in the COMPASS trial who required a surgery/procedure, there was no significant difference in perioperative adverse outcomes whether patients were receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA alone.

Methods, design, and initial results of an angiographic core lab from VOYAGER-PAD.

Background: Anatomy is critical in risk stratification and therapeutic decision making in coronary disease. The relationship between anatomy and outcomes is not well described in PAD. We sought to develop an angiographic core lab within the VOYAGER-PAD trial. The current report describes the methods of creating this core lab, its study population, and baseline anatomic variables. Methods: Patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized in VOYAGER-PAD. The median follow up was 2.25 years. Events were adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Endpoint Committee. Angiograms were collected from study participants; those with available angiograms formed this core lab cohort. Angiograms were scored for anatomic and flow characteristics by trained reviewers blinded to treatment. Ten percent of angiograms were evaluated independently by two reviewers; inter-rater agreement was assessed. Clinical characteristics and the treatment effect of rivaroxaban were compared between the core lab cohort and noncore lab participants. Anatomic data by segment were analyzed. Results: Of 6564 participants randomized in VOYAGER-PAD, catheter-based angiograms from 1666 patients were obtained for this core lab. Anatomic and flow characteristics were collected across 16 anatomic segments by 15 reviewers. Concordance between reviewers for anatomic and flow variables across segments was 90.5% (24,417/26,968). Clinical characteristics were similar between patients in the core lab and those not included. The effect of rivaroxaban on the primary efficacy and safety outcomes was also similar. Conclusions: The VOYAGER-PAD angiographic core lab provides an opportunity to correlate PAD anatomy with independently adjudicated outcomes and provide insights into therapy for PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02504216).

Net clinical benefit of extended dual pathway inhibition according to baseline risk in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a COMPASS substudy.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend extended dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with aspirin and rivaroxaban in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) at high ischaemic risk. The CHADS-P2A2RC score improves risk prediction and enables antithrombotic treatment allocation in these patients. This study evaluated the net clinical benefit of DPI treatment according to baseline risk as classified by the CHADS-P2A2RC score in patients with CCS included in the COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: COMPASS patients with CCS (n = 14 670), randomized to aspirin alone or DPI, were stratified according to cardiovascular risk using the CHADS-P2A2RC score. Endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, fatal/critical organ bleeding, and composite adverse events (MACE and bleeding). Net clinical benefit was the 30-month risk difference of MACE and bleeding. Thirty-month incidences of MACE [7.9% vs. 3.9%, hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83-2.18] and fatal/critical organ bleeding (1.2% vs. 0.8%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.06-1.92) were higher in high-risk (CHADS-P2A2RC ≥ 4) than in low/moderate-risk (CHADS-P2A2RC < 4) patients. DPI reduced MACE (low/moderate risk: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.82; high risk: HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99, P for interaction 0.09) and all-cause death (low/moderate risk: HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91; high risk: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65-1.00, P for interaction 0.29), without substantially increasing fatal/critical organ bleeding (low/moderate risk: HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.72-2.53; high risk: HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.73-1.90, P for interaction 0.73). DPI provided net clinical benefit of similar magnitude in low/moderate-risk (-1.81%, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.62) and high-risk (-1.96%, 95% CI -3.60 to -0.33) CCS patients. CONCLUSION: As classified by the CHADS-P2A2RC score, low/moderate- and high-risk patients with CCS derived similar net clinical benefit and reduction in all-cause death from DPI treatment.