A comparative in vitro study of the anticoagulant effect of branded versus generic rivaroxaban.

BACKGROUND: Several generic formulations of rivaroxaban were recently marketed to be used interchangeably with their branded equivalent. However, there have been no previously published studies that directly compared the in vitro anticoagulant effect of branded vs. generic rivaroxaban. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effects of three raw rivaroxaban materials, obtained from the branded (Xarelto®) and two generic (Rivarolto® and Rivaroxaban Sandoz®) rivaroxaban formulations on an array of coagulation assays. METHODS: A pool of normal plasma was spiked with several concentrations of the three rivaroxaban (range 50-750 ng/ml). The concentrations were assessed with a rivaroxaban calibrated anti-Xa assay and confirmed by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). The following assays were performed: Prothrombin time (PT), activated Partial Thromboplastin time (aPTT), Diluted Russell's Viper Venom Test (dRVVT), Thrombin time (TT), Clauss Fibrinogen, Factor VII, VIII and IX assays, and thromboelastography. RESULTS: The results obtained by the three rivaroxaban at similar concentrations were comparable. Increasing concentrations of the three rivaroxaban showed a strong positive correlation with the PT, aPTT and dRVVT assays (r > 0.95, p < 0.01 for all), and a strong negative correlation with the Factors assays (r < -0.95, p < 0.01 for all). TT and Clauss Fibrinogen were not affected by rivaroxaban. No significant difference was identified in the mean assays' results obtained by the three rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the branded and generic rivaroxaban exert an identical in vitro anticoagulant effect across a wide range of concentrations.

Long COVID Syndrome: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes various cardiovascular complications. However, it is unknown if there are cardiovascular sequelae in the medium and long-term. The aim of this study was dual. Firstly, we wanted to investigate symptomatology and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at medium-term follow-up (6 months post-COVID). Secondly, we wanted to assess whether history of COVID-19 and persistent shortness of breath at medium-term follow-up are associated with ongoing inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and cardiac injury. METHODS: A case-control study was performed. Virologically proven COVID-19 cases and age- and gender-matched controls were interviewed to assess symptoms and HRQoL. Biochemical tests were also performed. RESULTS: The study comprised 174 cases and 75 controls. The mean age of the participants was 46.1±13.8 years. The median follow-up was 173.5 days (interquartile range 129-193.25 days). There was no significant difference in the demographics between cases and controls. At follow-up, cases had a higher frequency of shortness of breath, fatigue, arthralgia, abnormal taste of food (P <.001), and anosmia. Cases also exhibited worse scores in the general health and role physical domains of the Short Form Survey-36. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was significantly higher in the cases, and there was a positive correlation of hsCRP with time. Significant determinants of shortness of breath were age, female gender and white cell count, troponin I, and lower hemoglobin levels at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Post-COVID-19 patients have persistent symptomatology at medium-term follow-up. Higher hsCRP in cases and the positive association of hsCRP with time suggest ongoing systemic inflammation in patients persisting for months after COVID-19.