Safe and effective use of rivaroxaban for treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolic disease: a prospective cohort study.

Low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the standard of care for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Rivaroxaban was approved in 2012 for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but no prior studies have been reported specifically evaluating the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Under a Quality Assessment Initiative (QAI), we established a Clinical Pathway to guide rivaroxaban use for CAT and now report a validation analysis of our first 200 patients. A 200 patient cohort with CAT (PE or symptomatic, proximal DVT), whose full course of anticoagulation was with rivaroxaban, were accrued. In competing risk analysis, primary endpoints at 6 months included new or recurrent PE or symptomatic proximal lower extremity DVT, major bleeding, clinically-relevant non-major bleeding leading to discontinuation of rivaroxaban, or death. In competing risk analysis, the 6 months cumulative incidence of new or recurrent VTE was 4.4 % (95 % CI = 1.4-7.4 %), major bleeding was 2.2 % (95 % CI = 0-4.2 %) and all-cause mortality 17.6 % (95 % CI = 11.7-23.0 %). In this cohort of 200 patients with active cancer and CAT the rates of new or recurrent VTE and major bleeding were comparable to the cancer subgroup analysis from the EINSTEIN studies. The results of our Clinical Pathway provide guidance on Rivaroxaban use for treatment of CAT, and suggest that safety and efficacy is preserved, compared with past-published experience with LMWH.

Real-world 2-year outcome of atrial fibrillation treatment with dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban in patients with and without chronic kidney disease.

Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of stroke and bleeding. Although direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) trials excluded patients with severe CKD, a growing portion of CKD patients have been starting DOACs and limited data from real-world outcome in this high-risk setting are available. The INSigHT registry included 632 consecutive NVAF patients that started apixaban (256 patients, 41%), dabigatran (245, 39%) and rivaroxaban (131, 20%) between 2012 and 2015. Based on creatinine clearance, two sub-cohorts were defined: (1) non-CKD group (CrCl 60-89 mL/min, 413 patients) and (2) CKD group (15-59 ml/min, 219). Compared to non-CKD patients, those with CKD, were at higher ischemic (CHA2DS2-VASc 4.5 vs 2.9, p < 0.001) and hemorrhagic risk (HAS-BLED 2.4 vs 1.8, p < 0.001). At 2-year follow-up, the overall ISTH-major bleeding and thromboembolic event rates were 5.2% and 2.3% and no significant difference between non-CKD and CKD patients for both efficacy and safety endpoints were observed. In non-CKD patients, the 2-year ISTH-major bleeding rates were higher in rivaroxaban group (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1-7.3; p = 0.047) while dabigatran showed non-significant excess in thromboembolic events (HR 4.3, 95% CI 0.9-20.8; p = 0.068). In CKD patients, a significantly higher rate of thromboembolic events was observed in rivaroxaban (HR 6.3, 95% CI 1.1-38.1; p = 0.044). This real-world, non-insurance database registry shows remarkable 2-year safety and efficacy profile of DOACs even in patients with moderate to severe CKD. Head to head differences between DOACs are exploratory, hypothesis generating and warrant further investigation in larger studies.

A Review on the New and Old Anticoagulants.

Anticoagulants serve as the primary strategy for the prevention and treatment of both arterial and venous thromboembolism. Anticoagulants disrupt coagulation by interfering at various points in the coagulation cascade. This class of medications does not lyse clots that already exist; rather, it prevents thrombus formation and prevents or slows the extension of an existing clot. For decades, the standard therapy for patients requiring oral anticoagulation was warfarin. However, due to some of the shortcomings of warfarin, including the need for continuous routine monitoring, longtime onset and offset of anticoagulation effect, major food and drug interactions, and high incidence of bleeding, newer agents, termed direct oral anticoagulants, or DOACs were developed. This article will provide a review of clinically important information regarding the most commonly used anticoagulants and their reversal agents.

Assessment of Outcomes of Treatment With Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis.

Importance: Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) are unknown. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin regarding stroke prevention and bleeding rates, respectively, in elderly patients with AF with MCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness analysis included data from the population-based Medicare beneficiaries database, evaluating patients with new AF diagnosed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2013, who initiated an oral anticoagulant within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1 to 3, 4 to 5, and 6 or higher; HAS-BLED scores of 0 to 1, 2, and 3 or higher; and Gagne comorbidity scores of 0 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 or higher were categorized as having low, moderate, or high morbidity, respectively. Within morbidity categories, patients receiving dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were matched using a 3-way propensity matching, and the relative hazards of stroke, major hemorrhage (MH), and death were evaluated. Data analysis included follow-up from the date of initial anticoagulant use through December 31, 2013. Exposures: Rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily), dabigatran (150 mg twice daily), or warfarin therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ischemic stroke, MH, and death. Results: The study cohort included 21 979 patients using dabigatran (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.4] years; 51.1% female), 23 177 using rivaroxaban (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.4] years; 49.9% female), and 101 715 using warfarin (mean [SD] age, 78.5 [7.2] years; 57.3% female). In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were no differences in stroke rates between the 3 oral anticoagulant groups. Dabigatran users had lower hazard of MH compared with warfarin users among patients with low MCC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.83; P < .001; for MCC defined as low CHA2DS2-VASc score), and similar risk in patients with moderate to high MCC. While there was no difference in MH between rivaroxaban and warfarin users, rivaroxaban users had significantly higher MH risk compared with dabigatran users in the medium and high comorbidity groups (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48; P = .02 and HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.56; P = .01, respectively). Dabigatran and rivaroxaban users had lower rates of death compared with warfarin users (HR ranged from 0.52-0.84), across comorbidity levels. Conclusions and Relevance: Oral anticoagulants are similarly effective in stroke prevention among patients with AF with MCC. However, dabigatran and rivaroxaban use may be associated with lower rates of mortality in patients with MCC.

Influences of Obesity and Bariatric Surgery on the Clinical and Pharmacologic Profile of Rivaroxaban.

The health implications of obesity are myriad and multifaceted. Physiologic changes associated with obesity can affect the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of administered drugs, thereby altering their pharmacologic profiles. In 2016, the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis published recommendations about the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in obese patients. This guidance provides uniform recommendations for all DOACs, yet data suggest that individual agents may be affected to different degrees by obesity. Moreover, there are no recommendations currently available to guide DOAC use in bariatric surgery patients, in whom anatomic and physiologic changes to the digestive system can influence drug pharmacokinetics. Our review of the available literature indicates that the clinical profile of the DOAC rivaroxaban is not affected by high weight or bariatric surgery; hence, it does not appear that rivaroxaban dosing needs to be altered in these patient populations.