Laboratory testing of rivaroxaban in routine clinical practice: when, how, and which assays.

A number of target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOAs) have been developed in recent years, and some have shown considerable promise in large-scale, randomized clinical trials in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolism. Unlike traditional anticoagulants, such as vitamin K antagonists, these TSOAs exhibit predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Among these agents, rivaroxaban, a direct Factor Xa inhibitor, has been approved for clinical use in many countries for the management of several thromboembolic disorders. As with the other TSOAs, rivaroxaban is given at fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring. However, in certain patient populations or special clinical circumstances, measurement of drug exposure may be useful, such as in suspected overdose, in patients with a haemorrhagic or thromboembolic event during treatment with an anticoagulant, in those with acute renal failure, or in patients who require urgent surgery. This article summarizes the influence of rivaroxaban on commonly used coagulation assays and provides practical guidance on laboratory testing of rivaroxaban in routine practice. Both quantitative measurement (using the anti-Factor Xa method) and qualitative measurement (using prothrombin time, expressed in seconds) are discussed, together with some practical considerations when performing these tests and interpreting the test results.

Measurement of dabigatran and rivaroxaban in primary prevention of venous thromboembolism in 106 patients, who have undergone major orthopedic surgery: an observational study.

No routine coagulation laboratory test is recommended during rivaroxaban or dabigatran treatment. However measuring drug concentration and/or anticoagulant activity can be desirable in some special clinical settings, such as bleeding, thrombosis recurrence or emergency surgery. The effects of dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban on various coagulation assays have been previously studied in normal plasma spiked with increasing concentrations of the drug. In contrast, few data are available in routinely treated patients. In order to perform and to interpret the results of these tests, it is necessary to determine the usual responses of patient's plasma. We have used several coagulation tests in a prospective study including 106 patients receiving thromboprophylactic treatment with dabigatran 150 or 220 mg od and rivaroxaban 10 mg od for major orthopaedic surgery. The most common tests--prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)--give results, which vary according to the reagent used. To overcome this limitation, we advocate the use of plasma calibrators, which decreases the inter-laboratory heterogeneity of results. Anti-Xa measurement and Hemoclot, a thrombin diluted clotting assay, are specific assays which have been proposed for rivaroxaban and dabigatran respectively. These tests, conventional PT, aPTT and thrombin generation (TG) have been performed. We demonstrated that measurements of both drugs can determine reliably the drug concentration in patients' plasmas. PT is more prolonged with rivaroxaban than with dabigatran. Interestingly, the pattern of TG was clearly different in relation to the difference in the mechanism of action of the two new anticoagulants. A significant inter-individual variability of response is detected. Rivaroxaban--mean Cmax 140 ng/mL (extremes 0-412) induces a greater increase of PT than dabigatran. aPTT is sensitive to dabigatran. Rivaroxaban concentrations were in good agreement with two other studies while unexplained lower than expected concentrations were found in dabigatran patients receiving 220 mg once a day [mean Cmax 60 ng/mL (extremes 0-320)]. An interference by pantoprazole, a drug which reduces dabigatran absorption, could explain the observed lower than expected results.