Rivaroxaban in Peripheral Artery Disease after Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease who have undergone lower-extremity revascularization are at high risk for major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in this context are uncertain. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, patients with peripheral artery disease who had undergone revascularization were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding, defined according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) classification; major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) was a secondary safety outcome. RESULTS: A total of 6564 patients underwent randomization; 3286 were assigned to the rivaroxaban group, and 3278 were assigned to the placebo group. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 508 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 584 in the placebo group; the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the incidence at 3 years were 17.3% and 19.9%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.009). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 44 patients in the placebo group (2.65% and 1.87%; hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.10; P = 0.07). ISTH major bleeding occurred in 140 patients in the rivaroxaban group, as compared with 100 patients in the placebo group (5.94% and 4.06%; hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.84; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with peripheral artery disease who had undergone lower-extremity revascularization, rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the composite outcome of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than aspirin alone. The incidence of TIMI major bleeding did not differ significantly between the groups. The incidence of ISTH major bleeding was significantly higher with rivaroxaban and aspirin than with aspirin alone. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; VOYAGER PAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02504216.).

Bivariate evaluation of thromboembolism and bleeding in clinical trials of anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Clinical trials of antithrombotic therapy require a cohesive assessment of benefit and risk. A new graphical method to represent the bivariate relation of benefit and risk in trials of antithrombotic drugs is described and illustrated using published data from the four major registration clinical trials of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) totalling 71,683 patients for prevention of thromboembolic events (TE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (RE-LY, ROCKET AF, ARISTOTLE, and ENGAGE-AF TIMI48). A curve representing a null hypothesis defines a region of benefit on a two-dimensional plane. Trial results are summarised by a rectangle defined by standard 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for thrombosis and bleeding risks. Benefit is judged by whether the confidence rectangle contains the null curve. The treatment effect is measured by the distance from the null curve to the opposing corners of the confidence rectangle (termed "corner distance (CD)"). Across trials NOACs reduced the absolute risk of TE compared to warfarin by 0.30 % (95 % CI: -0.56 % to -0.05 %) and reduced major bleeding by 0.88 % (95 % CI: -1.26 % to -0.51 %). Bivariate evaluation showed NOAC superiority to warfarin overall and elucidated dose differences; low dose edoxaban increased bivariate TE-bleeding risk 0.08 % (CD = -0.85 % to 0.78 %), whereas high dose edoxaban reduced risk 1.41 % (CD = -2.07 % to -0.70 %). In conclusion, bivariate evaluation facilitates visual assessment of the safety-efficacy profile of antithrombotic drugs. Its application to trials in atrial fibrillation found NOACs superior to warfarin without substantial differences between agents.

Improving evidence on anticoagulant therapies for venous thromboembolism in children: key challenges and opportunities.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly diagnosed in pediatric patients, and anticoagulant use in this population has become common, despite the absence of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for this indication. Guidelines for the use of anticoagulants in pediatrics are largely extrapolated from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, smaller dose-finding and observational studies in children, and expert opinion. The recently FDA-approved direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, provide potential advantages over oral vitamin K antagonists and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). However, key questions arise regarding their potential off-label clinical application in pediatric thromboembolic disease. In this Perspective, we provide background on the use of LMWHs such as enoxaparin as the mainstay of treatment of pediatric provoked VTE; identify key questions and challenges with regard to DOAC trials and future DOAC therapy in pediatric VTE; and discuss applicable lessons learned from the recent pilot/feasibility phase of a large multicenter RCT of anticoagulant duration in pediatric VTE. The challenges and lessons learned present opportunities to improve evidence for anticoagulant therapies in pediatric VTE through future clinical trials.