Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization, and Death in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is associated with heightened risks of venous and arterial thrombosis and hospitalization due to respiratory failure. To assess whether prophylactic anticoagulation can safely reduce the frequency of venous and arterial thrombosis, hospitalization, and death in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor, we conducted the PREVENT-HD double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (A Study of Rivaroxaban to Reduce the Risk of Major Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization and Death in Medically Ill Outpatients With Acute, Symptomatic COVID-19] Infection). METHODS: PREVENT-HD was conducted between August 2020 and April 2022 at 14 US integrated health care delivery networks. A virtual trial design used remote informed consent and clinical monitoring and facilitated data collection through electronic health record integration with a cloud-based research platform. Nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban or placebo daily for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic arterial embolism, hospitalization, or death through day 35. The principal safety end point was International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis critical-site or fatal bleeding. The last study visit was on day 49. RESULTS: The study was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges and a lower-than-expected blinded pooled event rate. A total of 1284 patients underwent randomization with complete accrual of primary events through May 2022. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 of 641 in the rivaroxaban group and 19 of 643 in the placebo group (3.4% versus 3.0%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.63-2.15]; P=0.63). No patient in either group experienced critical-site or fatal bleeding. One patient receiving rivaroxaban had a major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The study was terminated prematurely after enrollment of 32% of planned accrual because of recruitment challenges and lower-than-expected event rate. Rivaroxaban prescribed for 35 days in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 at risk for thrombosis did not appear to reduce a composite end point of venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04508023.

Association of Bleeding Severity With Mortality in Extended Thromboprophylaxis of Medically Ill Patients in the MAGELLAN and MARINER Trials.

BACKGROUND: Extended thromboprophylaxis has not been widely implemented in acutely ill medical patients because of bleeding concerns. The MAGELLAN (Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel Group Efficacy and Safety Study for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Medically Ill Patients Comparing Rivaroxaban With Enoxaparin) and MARINER (Medically Ill Patient Assessment of Rivaroxaban Versus Placebo in Reducing Post-Discharge Venous Thrombo-Embolism Risk) trials evaluated whether rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin or placebo could prevent venous thromboembolism without increased bleeding. We hypothesized that patients with major bleeding but not those with nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding would be at an increased risk of all-cause mortality (ACM). METHODS: We evaluated all bleeding events in patients taking at least 1 dose of study drug and their association with ACM in 4 mutually exclusive groups: (1) no bleeding, or first event was (2) nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding, (3) major bleeding, or (4) trivial bleeding. Using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics associated with ACM, we assessed the risk of ACM after such events. RESULTS: Compared with patients with no bleeding, the risk of ACM for patients with nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was not increased in MARINER (hazard ratio, 0.43; P=0.235) but was increased in MAGELLAN (hazard ratio, 1.74; P=0.021). Major bleeding was associated with a higher incidence of ACM in both studies, whereas trivial bleeding was not associated with ACM in either study. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with major bleeding had an increased risk of ACM, whereas nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was not consistently associated with an increased risk of death. These results inform the risk-benefit calculus of extended thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: MAGELLAN, NCT00571649. URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: MARINER, NCT02111564.

Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis after Hospitalization for Medical Illness.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are hospitalized for medical illness remain at risk for venous thromboembolism after discharge, but the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in the treatment of such patients is a subject of controversy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, medically ill patients who were at increased risk for venous thromboembolism on the basis of a modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score of 4 or higher (scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism) or a score of 2 or 3 plus a plasma d-dimer level of more than twice the upper limit of the normal range (defined according to local laboratory criteria) were assigned at hospital discharge to either once-daily rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg (with the dose adjusted for renal insufficiency) or placebo for 45 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism or death due to venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of the 12,024 patients who underwent randomization, 12,019 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 50 of 6007 patients (0.83%) who were given rivaroxaban and in 66 of 6012 patients (1.10%) who were given placebo (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.09; P=0.14). The prespecified secondary outcome of symptomatic nonfatal venous thromboembolism occurred in 0.18% of patients in the rivaroxaban group and 0.42% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.89). Major bleeding occurred in 17 of 5982 patients (0.28%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 9 of 5980 patients (0.15%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.84 to 4.23). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban, given to medical patients for 45 days after hospital discharge, was not associated with a significantly lower risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and death due to venous thromboembolism than placebo. The incidence of major bleeding was low. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARINER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02111564 .).

Rationale and design for the study of rivaroxaban to reduce thrombotic events, hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19: The PREVENT-HD study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with both venous and arterial thrombotic complications. While prophylactic anticoagulation is now widely recommended for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19 has not been established. STUDY DESIGN: PREVENT-HD is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, pragmatic, event-driven phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in symptomatic outpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 at risk for thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. Several challenges posed by the pandemic have necessitated innovative approaches to clinical trial design, start-up, and conduct. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by time from COVID-19 confirmation, to either rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or placebo for 35 days. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety end point is fatal and critical site bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis definition. Enrollment began in August 2020 and is expected to enroll approximately 4,000 participants to yield the required number of end point events. CONCLUSIONS: PREVENT-HD is a pragmatic trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban in the outpatient setting to reduce major venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and mortality associated with COVID-19.

Bronchial mucosal IFN-α/ß and pattern recognition receptor expression in patients with experimental rhinovirus-induced asthma exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: The innate immune system senses viral infection through pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), leading to type I interferon production. The role of type I interferon and PPRs in rhinovirus-induced asthma exacerbations in vivo are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare bronchial mucosal type I interferon and PRR expression at baseline and after rhinovirus infection in atopic asthmatic patients and control subjects. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry was used to detect expression of IFN-α, IFN-ß, and the PRRs: Toll-like receptor 3, melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5, and retinoic acid-inducible protein I in bronchial biopsy specimens from 10 atopic asthmatic patients and 15 nonasthmatic nonatopic control subjects at baseline and on day 4 and 6 weeks after rhinovirus infection. RESULTS: We observed IFN-α/ß deficiency in the bronchial epithelium at 3 time points in asthmatic patients in vivo. Lower epithelial IFN-α/ß expression was related to greater viral load, worse airway symptoms, airway hyperresponsiveness, and reductions in lung function during rhinovirus infection. We found lower frequencies of bronchial subepithelial monocytes/macrophages expressing IFN-α/ß in asthmatic patients during infection. Interferon deficiency at baseline was not accompanied by deficient PRR expression in asthmatic patients. Both epithelial and subepithelial PRR expression were induced during rhinovirus infection. Rhinovirus infection-increased numbers of subepithelial interferon/PRR-expressing inflammatory cells were related to greater viral load, airway hyperresponsiveness, and reductions in lung function. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchial epithelial IFN-α/ß expression and numbers of subepithelial IFN-α/ß-expressing monocytes/macrophages during infection were both deficient in asthmatic patients. Lower epithelial IFN-α/ß expression was associated with adverse clinical outcomes after rhinovirus infection in vivo. Increases in numbers of subepithelial cells expressing interferon/PRRs during infection were also related to greater viral load/illness severity.

Toll-like receptor 3 blockade in rhinovirus-induced experimental asthma exacerbations: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Human rhinoviruses (HRVs) commonly precipitate asthma exacerbations. Toll-like receptor 3, an innate pattern recognition receptor, is triggered by HRV, driving inflammation that can worsen asthma. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate an inhibitory mAb to Toll-like receptor 3, CNTO3157, on experimental HRV-16 inoculation in healthy subjects and asthmatic patients. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study in North America and Europe, healthy subjects and patients with mild-to-moderate stable asthma received single or multiple doses of CNTO3157 or placebo, respectively, and were then inoculated with HRV-16 within 72 hours. All subjects were monitored for respiratory symptoms, lung function, and nasal viral load. The primary end point was maximal decrease in FEV1 during 10 days after inoculation. RESULTS: In asthmatic patients (n = 63) CNTO3157 provided no protection against FEV1 decrease (least squares mean: CNTO3157 [n = 30] = -7.08% [SE, 8.15%]; placebo [n = 25] = -5.98% [SE, 8.56%]) or symptoms after inoculation. In healthy subjects (n = 12) CNTO3157 versus placebo significantly attenuated upper (P = .03) and lower (P = .02) airway symptom scores, with area-under-the-curve increases of 9.1 (15.1) versus 34.9 (17.6) and 13.0 (18.4) versus 50.4 (25.9) for the CNTO3157 (n = 8) and placebo (n = 4) groups, respectively, after inoculation. All of the severe and 4 of the nonserious asthma exacerbations occurred while receiving CNTO3157. CONCLUSION: In summary, CNTO3157 was ineffective in attenuating the effect of HRV-16 challenge on lung function, asthma control, and symptoms in asthmatic patients but suppressed cold symptoms in healthy subjects. Other approaches, including blockade of multiple pathways or antiviral agents, need to be sought for this high unmet medical need.

A phase 2a study of toreforant, a histamine H4 receptor antagonist, in eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Data from preclinical and clinical studies support the evaluation of histamine 4 receptor antagonists in the treatment of asthma. Toreforant is a selective histamine 4 receptor antagonist that could be effective in patients with eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of toreforant in patients with eosinophilic, persistent asthma that was inadequately controlled despite current treatment. METHODS: In this phase 2a, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study, 162 eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to placebo or 30 mg of toreforant once daily through week 24 and followed for 4 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second at week 16. Secondary end points included change from baseline at week 16 in postbronchodilator percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, Asthma Control Questionnaire scores, weekly averages of Daytime and Nighttime Asthma Diary Symptom Scores, and weekly average of number of puffs in a day that rescue medication was used. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups in pre-bronchodilator percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second at week 16 (difference in least-square means -0.19%; 95% confidence interval -3.01 to 2.64; P = .90). Similarly, there were no significant differences between groups at week 16 in changes from baseline in the secondary end points (P ≥ .30). Toreforant was generally well tolerated. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported at any time point. CONCLUSION: Toreforant, at the dose tested, failed to provide therapeutic benefit in this population of patients with uncontrolled, eosinophilic, persistent asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01823016.

Identification of airway mucosal type 2 inflammation by using clinical biomarkers in asthmatic patients.

BACKGROUND: The Airways Disease Endotyping for Personalized Therapeutics (ADEPT) study profiled patients with mild, moderate, and severe asthma and nonatopic healthy control subjects. OBJECTIVE: We explored this data set to define type 2 inflammation based on airway mucosal IL-13-driven gene expression and how this related to clinically accessible biomarkers. METHODS: IL-13-driven gene expression was evaluated in several human cell lines. We then defined type 2 status in 25 healthy subjects, 28 patients with mild asthma, 29 patients with moderate asthma, and 26 patients with severe asthma based on airway mucosal expression of (1) CCL26 (the most differentially expressed gene), (2) periostin, or (3) a multigene IL-13 in vitro signature (IVS). Clinically accessible biomarkers included fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (Feno) values, blood eosinophil (bEOS) counts, serum CCL26 expression, and serum CCL17 expression. RESULTS: Expression of airway mucosal CCL26, periostin, and IL-13-IVS all facilitated segregation of subjects into type 2-high and type 2-low asthmatic groups, but in the ADEPT study population CCL26 expression was optimal. All subjects with high airway mucosal CCL26 expression and moderate-to-severe asthma had Feno values (≥35 ppb) and/or high bEOS counts (≥300 cells/mm3) compared with a minority (36%) of subjects with low airway mucosal CCL26 expression. A combination of Feno values, bEOS counts, and serum CCL17 and CCL26 expression had 100% positive predictive value and 87% negative predictive value for airway mucosal CCL26-high status. Clinical variables did not differ between subjects with type 2-high and type 2-low status. Eosinophilic inflammation was associated with but not limited to airway mucosal type 2 gene expression. CONCLUSION: A panel of clinical biomarkers accurately classified type 2 status based on airway mucosal CCL26, periostin, or IL-13-IVS gene expression. Use of Feno values, bEOS counts, and serum marker levels (eg, CCL26 and CCL17) in combination might allow patient selection for novel type 2 therapeutics.

A disease module in the interactome explains disease heterogeneity, drug response and captures novel pathways and genes in asthma.

Recent advances in genetics have spurred rapid progress towards the systematic identification of genes involved in complex diseases. Still, the detailed understanding of the molecular and physiological mechanisms through which these genes affect disease phenotypes remains a major challenge. Here, we identify the asthma disease module, i.e. the local neighborhood of the interactome whose perturbation is associated with asthma, and validate it for functional and pathophysiological relevance, using both computational and experimental approaches. We find that the asthma disease module is enriched with modest GWAS P-values against the background of random variation, and with differentially expressed genes from normal and asthmatic fibroblast cells treated with an asthma-specific drug. The asthma module also contains immune response mechanisms that are shared with other immune-related disease modules. Further, using diverse omics (genomics, gene-expression, drug response) data, we identify the GAB1 signaling pathway as an important novel modulator in asthma. The wiring diagram of the uncovered asthma module suggests a relatively close link between GAB1 and glucocorticoids (GCs), which we experimentally validate, observing an increase in the level of GAB1 after GC treatment in BEAS-2B bronchial epithelial cells. The siRNA knockdown of GAB1 in the BEAS-2B cell line resulted in a decrease in the NFkB level, suggesting a novel regulatory path of the pro-inflammatory factor NFkB by GAB1 in asthma.

Validated and longitudinally stable asthma phenotypes based on cluster analysis of the ADEPT study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a disease of varying severity and differing disease mechanisms. To date, studies aimed at stratifying asthma into clinically useful phenotypes have produced a number of phenotypes that have yet to be assessed for stability and to be validated in independent cohorts. The aim of this study was to define and validate, for the first time ever, clinically driven asthma phenotypes using two independent, severe asthma cohorts: ADEPT and U-BIOPRED. METHODS: Fuzzy partition-around-medoid clustering was performed on pre-specified data from the ADEPT participants (n = 156) and independently on data from a subset of U-BIOPRED asthma participants (n = 82) for whom the same variables were available. Models for cluster classification probabilities were derived and applied to the 12-month longitudinal ADEPT data and to a larger subset of the U-BIOPRED asthma dataset (n = 397). High and low type-2 inflammation phenotypes were defined as high or low Th2 activity, indicated by endobronchial biopsies gene expression changes downstream of IL-4 or IL-13. RESULTS: Four phenotypes were identified in the ADEPT (training) cohort, with distinct clinical and biomarker profiles. Phenotype 1 was "mild, good lung function, early onset", with a low-inflammatory, predominantly Type-2, phenotype. Phenotype 2 had a "moderate, hyper-responsive, eosinophilic" phenotype, with moderate asthma control, mild airflow obstruction and predominant Type-2 inflammation. Phenotype 3 had a "mixed severity, predominantly fixed obstructive, non-eosinophilic and neutrophilic" phenotype, with moderate asthma control and low Type-2 inflammation. Phenotype 4 had a "severe uncontrolled, severe reversible obstruction, mixed granulocytic" phenotype, with moderate Type-2 inflammation. These phenotypes had good longitudinal stability in the ADEPT cohort. They were reproduced and demonstrated high classification probability in two subsets of the U-BIOPRED asthma cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on the biology of the four clinical independently-validated easy-to-assess ADEPT asthma phenotypes will help understanding the unmet need and will aid in developing tailored therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01274507 (ADEPT), registered October 28, 2010 and NCT01982162 (U-BIOPRED), registered October 30, 2013.

Validation and important differences for the Sarcoidosis Assessment Tool. A new patient-reported outcome measure.

RATIONALE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been developed to measure symptoms and other aspects of health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The Sarcoidosis Assessment Tool (SAT), a sarcoidosis-specific PRO, was administered in a lung and skin sarcoidosis treatment trial. We explored SAT performance characteristics and correlation with standard clinical measurements to validate it as a useful clinical sarcoidosis-specific PRO. METHODS: The SAT analyses focused on baseline and Week 16 assessments. Besides the SAT, participants underwent clinical and physician assessments plus additional PROs that were used as anchor variables and were compared with the SAT. Reliability was evaluated by using Cronbach α coefficient. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the association between SAT scores with clinical and other PRO measures. Changes between assessments in the clinical and PRO "anchor" variables were classified as improved, stable, or worsened. Mean differences between adjacent categories of the known groups and mean changes from the ability to detect change analyses were reviewed for appropriate clinically important difference estimates. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Results from 173 patients were analyzed. Each SAT module reflected appropriate anchor variables at baseline and in terms of change. The Cronbach α for each of these modules was at least 0.87. In addition, we successfully established a clinically important difference range for each SAT module. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the SAT is a reliable and consistent sarcoidosis-specific PRO. It has excellent internal consistency and reliability. A range of clinically important differences has been established for the SAT modules. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00955279).

CC-chemokine ligand 2 inhibition in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a phase 2 trial of carlumab.

The objective of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of carlumab in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).A phase 2, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled dose-ranging study was conducted in patients with IPF (n=126). Patients were randomised to carlumab (1 mg·kg(-1), 5 mg·kg(-1), or 15 mg·kg(-1)) or placebo every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the rate of percentage change in forced vital capacity (FVC). Secondary endpoints were time to disease progression, absolute change in FVC, relative change in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score.Due to a pre-planned, unfavourable interim benefit-risk analysis, dosing was suspended. The rate of percentage change in FVC showed no treatment effect (placebo -0.582%, 1 mg·kg(-1) -0.533%, 5 mg·kg(-1) -0.799% and 15 mg·kg(-1) -0.470%; p=0.261). All active treatment groups showed a greater decline in FVC (1 mg·kg(-1) -290 mL, 5 mg·kg(-1) -370 mL and 15 mg·kg(-1) -320 mL) compared with placebo (-130 mL). No effect on disease progression, DLCO, infection rates or mortality was observed. SGRQ scores showed a nonsignificant trend toward worsening with active treatment. Unexpectedly, free CC-chemokine ligand 2 levels were elevated above baseline at both 24 and 52 weeks. A higher proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events was observed in the 5 mg·kg(-1) group (53.1%) compared with 1 mg·kg(-1) (15.2%), 15 mg·kg(-1) (21.9%) and placebo (46.4%), although no unexpected serious adverse events were noted.Although dosing was stopped prematurely, it is unlikely that carlumab provides benefit to IPF patients.

Utility of animal and in vivo experimental infection of humans with rhinoviruses in the development of therapeutic agents for viral exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

There is an association with acute viral infection of the respiratory tract and exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although these exacerbations are associated with several types of viruses, human rhinoviruses (HRVs) are associated with the vast majority of disease exacerbations. Due to the lack of an animal species that is naturally permissive for HRVs to use as a facile model system, and the limitations associated with animal models of asthma and COPD, studies of controlled experimental infection of humans with HRVs have been used and conducted safely for decades. This review discusses how these experimental infection studies with HRVs have provided a means of understanding the pathophysiology underlying virus-induced exacerbations of asthma and COPD with the goal of developing agents for their prevention and treatment.

Safety and efficacy of ustekinumab or golimumab in patients with chronic sarcoidosis.

Sarcoidosis is characterised by non-caseating granulomas that secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-12, IL-23, and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α. Ustekinumab and golimumab are monoclonal antibodies that specifically inhibit IL-12/IL-23 and TNF-α, respectively. Patients with chronic pulmonary sarcoidosis (lung group) and/or skin sarcoidosis (skin group) received either 180 mg ustekinumab at week 0 followed by 90 mg every 8 weeks, 200 mg golimumab at week 0 followed by 100 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. Patients underwent corticosteroid tapering between weeks 16 and 28. The primary end-point was week 16 change in percentage predicted forced vital capacity (ΔFVC % pred) in the lung group. Major secondary end-points were: week 28 for ΔFVC % pred, 6-min walking distance, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (lung group), and Skin Physician Global Assessment response (skin group). At week 16, no significant differences were observed in ΔFVC % pred with ustekinumab (-0.15, p = 0.13) or golimumab (1.15, p = 0.54) compared with placebo (2.02). At week 28, there were no significant improvements in the major secondary end-points, although a nonsignificant numerically greater Skin Physician Global Assessment response was observed following golimumab treatment (53%) when compared with the placebo (30%). Serious adverse events were similar in all treatment groups. Although treatment was well tolerated, neither ustekinumab nor golimumab demonstrated efficacy in pulmonary sarcoidosis. However, trends towards improvement were observed with golimumab in some dermatological end-points.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Evaluation of Rivaroxaban in Patients After Peripheral Arterial Revascularization: The VOYAGER PAD Trial.

BACKGROUND: The VOYAGER PAD (Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Major Thrombotic Vascular Events in Subjects With Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization Procedures of the Lower Extremities) trial compared rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin with aspirin alone in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease requiring endovascular or surgical limb revascularization, with 50% receiving clopidogrel background therapy. The New Drug Indication application includes benefit-risk assessments using clinical judgment to balance benefits against risks. During its review, the US Food and Drug Administration requested additional quantitative benefit-risk analyses with formal weighting approaches. METHODS AND RESULTS: Benefits and risks were assessed using rate differences between treatment groups (unweighted analysis). To account for clinical importance of the end points, a multi-criteria decision analysis was conducted using health state utility values as weights. Monte Carlo simulations incorporated statistical uncertainties of the event rates and utility weights. Intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses were conducted. For unweighted intent-to-treat analyses, rivaroxaban plus aspirin would result in 120 (95% CI, -208 to -32) fewer events of the primary composite end point (per 10 000 patient-years) compared with aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban caused an excess of 40 (95% CI, 8-72) Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding events, which was largely driven by nonfatal, nonintracranial hemorrhage Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding events. For weighted analyses, rivaroxaban resulted in the utility equivalent of 13.7 (95% CI, -85.3 to 52.6) and 68.1 (95% CI, 7.9-135.7) fewer deaths per 10 000 patient-years (intent-to-treat and on-treatment, respectively), corresponding to probabilities of 64.4% and 98.7%, respectively, that benefits outweigh risks favoring rivaroxaban per Monte Carlo simulation. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses show a favorable benefit-risk profile of rivaroxaban therapy in the VOYAGER PAD trial, with findings generally consistent between the unweighted and weighted approaches.

Updated Renal Dosage Recommendations for Rivaroxaban in Patients Experiencing or at Risk of Thromboembolic Disease.

Patients with chronic kidney disease are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban has been shown to provide similar efficacy and a lower risk of bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists for the treatment and prevention of VTE. Rivaroxaban has been studied in patients with varying degrees of renal impairment, and this review summarizes current knowledge supporting its use in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl] of 15 to < 30 mL/min) for the prevention, treatment, or prophylaxis of VTE. Clinical pharmacology studies have demonstrated an increase in rivaroxaban systemic exposure, factor Xa inhibition, and prothrombin time with decreasing renal function. These changes reach a plateau with comparable increases in exposure among individuals with moderate or severe renal impairment and end-stage renal disease. The clinical development program for the treatment and prevention of VTE as well as prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) following orthopedic surgery excluded patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min; however, a limited number of patients with severe renal impairment were enrolled. Efficacy outcomes in these patients with severe renal impairment were not meaningfully different from those of patients with higher levels of renal function. There was also no increase in the incidence of major bleeding with rivaroxaban in patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min. Taken together, these pharmacological and clinical data suggest that in patients with severe renal impairment, the approved dosages of rivaroxaban can be used in the treatment and prevention of VTE and for prophylaxis of DVT after hip or knee replacement surgery.

Antithrombotic Prophylaxis with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Prehospital COVID-19: A Meta-analysis of Two Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a prespecified meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily in prehospital patients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Individually, the trials had limited power to detect a treatment effect due to recruitment stopping ahead of plan. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The statistical analysis plan for the meta-analysis was finalized before unblinding of PREVENT-HD, the larger of the two trials. Pooled risk ratios and pooled risk differences along with the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effect models. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban did not reduce the occurrence of either the primary prespecified endpoint, a composite of symptomatic arterial and venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality (risk difference: 0.0044; 95% confidence interval: -0.0263, 0.0175; p = 0.69 for pooled risk difference) or the secondary endpoint of all-cause hospitalization (p = 0.76). Although thrombotic events were infrequent, pooled analysis did reveal that rivaroxaban reduced arterial and venous thrombotic events (placebo 6 events, rivaroxaban 0 events; pooled risk difference: -0.0068; 95% confidence interval: -0.0132, -0.0006; p = 0.03). In the pooled studies, only one major bleeding event was observed in a rivaroxaban-allocated patient with no critical site or fatal bleeding events. CONCLUSION: Although this meta-analysis does not support antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban in a broad prehospital population with acute COVID-19, the prevention of arterial and venous thrombotic events among rivaroxaban-allocated patients is consistent with the known thromboprophylactic effect of the drug in medically ill patients.