Perioperative Treatment with Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran on Changes of Coagulation and Platelet Activation Biomarkers following Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

Insufficient data exist regarding the investigation of the impact of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) on coagulation activation biomarkers in the context of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and device-related thrombosis (DRT). The study was designed to investigate the changes and presence of coagulation activation biomarkers between different antithrombotic strategies following LAAC. A total of 120 nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients intolerant of long-term anticoagulants, who underwent successful WATCHMAN closure implantation, were enrolled (rivaroxaban, n = 82; dabigatran, n = 38). Blood samples were obtained from left atrium (LA) and left atrial appendage (LAA) during the operation and fasting blood samples on the same day of LAAC and 45 days after discharge. The biochemical indicators, thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), soluble P-selectin (sP-selectin), von Willebrand factor (vWF), and CD40 ligand (CD40L), were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The primary endpoints of this study were the efficacy and safety characteristics of different antithrombotic strategies, including DRT incidence, stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, and clinical major and nonmajor bleeding complications during the follow-up of 180 days. The results revealed that TAT, vWF, sP-selectin, and CD40L levels in vein were significantly reduced by 2.4% (p = 0.043), 5.0% (p < 0.001), 8.7% (p < 0.001), and 2.5% (p = 0.043) from their baseline levels after rivaroxaban treatment. Conversely, no significant changes were detected in the dabigatran group. Furthermore, the plasma levels of platelet activation biomarkers (CD40L and sP-selectin) in both LA and LAA groups were significantly lower after anticoagulation with rivaroxaban, as compared to dabigatran treatment (CD40L: 554.62 ± 155.54 vs. 445.02 ± 130.04 for LA p = 0.0013, 578.51 ± 156.28 vs. 480.13 ± 164.37 for LAA p = 0.0052; sP-selectin: 2849.07 ± 846.69 vs. 2225.54 ± 799.96 for LA p = 0.0105, 2915.52 ± 1402.40 vs. 2203.41 ± 1061.67 for LAA p = 0.0022). Notably, the present study suggests that rivaroxaban may be more effective in the prevention of DRT for patients undergoing LAAC.

Toward Genetic Testing of Rivaroxaban? Insights from a Systematic Review on the Role of Genetic Polymorphism in Rivaroxaban Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Investigations into the rivaroxaban response from the perspective of genetic variation have been relatively recent and wide in scope, whereas there is no consensus on the necessity of genetic testing of rivaroxaban. Thus, this systematic review aims to thoroughly evaluate the relationship between genetic polymorphisms and rivaroxaban outcomes. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Chinese databases were searched to 23 October 2022. We included cohort studies reporting the pharmacogenetic correlation of rivaroxaban. Outcomes measured included efficacy (all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events and coagulation-related tests), safety (major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding [CRNMB] and any hemorrhage), and pharmacokinetic outcomes. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarize findings from individual studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the reporting guideline for Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies published between 2019 and 2022 involving 1364 patients were included. Ten, one, and six studies focused on the ABCB1, ABCG2, and CYP gene polymorphisms, respectively. Pharmacokinetic outcomes accounted for the majority of the outcomes reported (n = 11), followed by efficacy (n = 5) [including prothrombin time (PT) or international normalized ratio (n = 3), platelet inhibition rate (PIR) or platelet reactivity units (PRUs; n = 1), thromboembolic events (n = 1)], and safety (n = 5) [including major bleeding (n = 2), CRNMB (n = 2), any hemorrhage (n = 1)]. For ABCB1 gene polymorphism, the relationship between PT and ABCB1 rs1045642 was inconsistent across studies, however there was no pharmacogenetic relationship with other efficacy outcomes. Safety associations were found in ABCB1 rs4148738 and major bleeding, ABCB1 rs4148738 and CRNMB, ABCB1 rs1045642 and CRNMB, and ABCB1 rs2032582 and hemorrhage. Pharmacokinetic results were inconsistent among studies. For ABCG2 gene polymorphism, no correlation was observed between ABCG2 rs2231142 and dose-adjusted trough concentration (Cmin/D). For CYP gene polymorphisms, PIR or PRUs have a relationship with CYP2C19 rs12248560, however bleeding or pharmacokinetic effects did not show similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available data are insufficient to confirm the relationship between clinical or pharmacokinetic outcomes of rivaroxaban and gene polymorphisms. Proactive strategies are advised as a priority in clinical practice rather than detection of SNP genotyping. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42022347907.

Comparison of High- and Low-Dose Rivaroxaban Regimens in Elderly East Asian Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: In the Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) trial, rivaroxaban 20 mg was the on-label dose, and the dose-reduction criterion for rivaroxaban was a creatinine clearance of < 50 mL/min. Some Asian countries are using reduced doses label according to the J-ROCKET AF trial. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a high-dose rivaroxaban regimen (HDRR, 20/15 mg) and low-dose rivaroxaban regimen (LDRR, 15/10 mg) among elderly East Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in real-world practice. METHODS: This study was a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional observational study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in AF patients > 65 years of age with or without renal impairment. RESULTS: A total of 1,093 patients (mean age, 72.8 ± 5.8 years; 686 [62.9%] men) were included in the analysis, with 493 patients allocated to the HDRR group and 598 patients allocated to the LDRR group. A total of 765 patients received 15 mg of rivaroxaban (203 in the HDRR group and 562 in the LDRR group). There were no significant differences in the incidence rates of major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.21-1.93), stroke (adjusted HR, 3.21; 95% CI, 0.54-19.03), and composite outcomes (adjusted HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.47-2.69) between the HDRR and LDRR groups. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the safety and effectiveness of either dose regimen of rivaroxaban in an Asian population for stroke prevention of AF. Considerable numbers of patients are receiving LDRR therapy in real-world practice in Asia. Both regimens were safe and effective for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04096547.

Switching from Dual Antiplatelet Therapy with Aspirin Plus a P2Y12 Inhibitor to Dual Pathway Inhibition with Aspirin Plus Vascular-Dose Rivaroxaban: The Switching Anti-Platelet and Anti-Coagulant Therapy (SWAP-AC) Study.

BACKGROUND: To date, there are no data on switching to dual pathway inhibition (DPI) patients who have completed a guideline-recommended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of switching from DAPT to DPI and to compare the pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of these treatments. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, PD study conducted in 90 patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) on DAPT with aspirin (81 mg/qd) plus a P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel [75 mg/qd; n = 30], ticagrelor [90 mg/bid; n = 30], or prasugrel [10 mg/qd; n = 30]). Patients in each cohort were randomized to maintain DAPT or switch to DPI (aspirin 81 mg/qd plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg/bid). PD assessments included: VerifyNow P2Y12 reaction units; light transmittance aggregometry following stimuli with adenosine diphosphate (ADP), tissue factor (TF), and a combination of collagen, ADP, and TF (maximum platelet aggregation %); thrombin generation (TG). Assays were performed at baseline and 30 days postrandomization. RESULTS: Switching from DAPT to DPI occurred without major side effects. DAPT was associated with enhanced P2Y12 inhibition, while DPI with reduced TG. Platelet-mediated global thrombogenicity (primary endpoint) showed no differences between DAPT and DPI in the ticagrelor (14.5% [0.0-63.0] vs. 20.0% [0.0-70.0]; p = 0.477) and prasugrel (20.0% [0.0-66.0] vs. 4.0% [0.0-70.0]; p = 0.482), but not clopidogrel (27.0% [0.0-68.0] vs. 53.0% [0.0-81.0]; p = 0.011), cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients with CCS, switching from different DAPT regimens to DPI was feasible, showing enhanced P2Y12 inhibition with DAPT and reduced TG with DPI, with no differences in platelet-mediated global thrombogenicity between DPI and ticagrelor- and prasugrel-, but not clopidogrel-, based DAPT. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Unique Identifier: NCT04006288.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Although older patients with atrial fibrillation are at heightened risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events, their optimal treatment choice remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials that compared thromboembolic or bleeding outcomes between a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and reported outcomes for patients aged ≥75 years with atrial fibrillation. The efficacy outcome was the composite of stroke and systemic embolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, any clinically relevant bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Each DOAC and VKA was compared pairwise in a network meta-analysis. High- and low-dose regimens and factor IIa and Xa inhibitors were also compared. Seven randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Stroke and systemic embolism risks did not differ significantly among DOACs. There were no significant differences in major bleeding between each DOAC and VKA. Intracranial hemorrhage risk was significantly lower with dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban than with VKA and rivaroxaban, which had similar risks. High-dose regimens led to lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism compared with VKA and low-dose regimens, with both doses having similar bleeding risks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged ≥75 years with atrial fibrillation, DOACs were associated with fewer thromboembolic events compared with VKA, whereas dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban were associated with lower risks of intracranial hemorrhage compared with VKA and rivaroxaban. REGISTRATION: URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42022329557.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been becoming prevalent in recent years and are increasingly used in the treatment of port vein thrombosis. The difference of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran remains unclear in the treatment of cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT). METHODS: This retrospective study included all consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis in our institute from January 2020 to December 2021. The patients received oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. The demographic, clinical, and imaging data of patients were collected. The diagnosis of acute PVT was confirmed by imaging examinations. The severity of liver cirrhosis was assessed using Child-Pugh score and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Outcomes included recanalization (complete, partial, and persistent occlusion), liver function, bleedings, and survival. The log-rank test was used to compare Kaplan-Meier distributions of time-to-event outcomes. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 94 patients were included, 52 patients (55%) received rivaroxaban and 42 (45%) with dabigatran. The complete and partial recanalization of PVT was observed in 41 patients. There was no significant difference in complete recanalization, partial recanalization, and persistent occlusion between the two groups. With multivariate analysis, D-dimer (HR 1.165, 95% CI 1.036-1.311, p = 0.011) was independent predictors of complete recanalization. The Child-Pugh score (p = 0.001) was significantly improved in both two groups after anticoagulation, respectively. However, there was no difference between the two groups. The probability of survival was 94%, 95% in the rivaroxaban and dabigatran groups (log-rank p = 0.830). Major bleedings were reported in 3 patients (6%) in rivaroxaban group and 1 patient (2%) in dabigatran group (p = 0.646). Six patients (12%) in rivaroxaban group experienced minor bleeding, and five (12%) from dabigatran group (p = 0.691). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety were comparable between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis. And D-dimer can contribute to the prediction of PVT recanalization in cirrhotic patients.

Comparison of bleeding and ischemic events with apixaban vs. rivaroxaban in triple antithrombotic therapy regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of readmissions for major bleeding within one year between apixaban and rivaroxaban as a component of triple antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: This study was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at two academic medical centers in the Western New York and New York City region between July 1, 2011 and September 25, 2019. Adult patients were included if they were diagnosed with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism and discharged on new triple antithrombotic therapy. The primary outcome compared the rates of 1-year readmission for major bleeding between apixaban and rivaroxaban groups. Secondary outcomes included rate of ischemic outcomes. Time to event analysis was determined with a Kaplan-Meier plot and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were included in the study, 212 in the apixaban group and 166 in the rivaroxaban group. Within 1 year, readmission for major bleeding events occurred in six (2.8%) patients in the apixaban group and four (2.4%) patients in the rivaroxaban group ( P  = 1.000). After adjustment, the major bleeding event rate was not statistically significantly different between apixaban and rivaroxaban [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-3.77; P  = 0.6624]. Higher albumin levels were identified to be protective against major bleeding related readmission events (aHR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.63; P  = 0.0072). The ischemic outcome occurred in seven (3.3%) patients in the apixaban group and three (1.8%) in the rivaroxaban group ( P  = 0.7368). CONCLUSION: Use of apixaban or rivaroxaban in a triple antithrombotic regimen was not associated with bleeding or ischemic outcomes.

Association of type of oral anticoagulation with risk of bleeding in 45,114 patients with venous thromboembolism during initial and extended treatment-A nationwide register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Safety data for different anticoagulant medications in venous thromboembolism (VTE) are scarce, in particular for extended treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare major bleeding rates depending on the choice of anticoagulation during initial (first 6 months) and extended treatment (6 months up to 5 years). METHODS: A nationwide register-based study including cancer-free patients with a first-time VTE between 2014 and 2020. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare bleeding rates. RESULTS: We included 6558 patients on warfarin, 18,196 on rivaroxaban, and 19,498 on apixaban. At 6 months, 4750 (72.4%) remained on warfarin, 11,366 (62.5%) on rivaroxaban, and 11,940 (61.2%) on apixaban. During initial treatment, major bleeding rates were 3.86 (95% CI 3.14-4.58), 2.93 (2.55-3.31), and 1.95 (1.65-2.25) per 100 patient-years for warfarin, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively, yielding adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71-1.12) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, 0.55 (0.43-0.71) for apixaban versus warfarin, and 0.62 (0.50-0.76) for apixaban versus rivaroxaban. During extended treatment, major bleeding rates were 1.55 (1.19-1.91), 1.05 (0.85-1.26), and 0.96 (0.78-1.15) per 100 patient-years for warfarin, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively, with aHRs of 0.72 (0.53-0.99) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, 0.60 (0.44-0.82) for apixaban versus warfarin, and 0.85 (0.64-1.12) for apixaban versus rivaroxaban. Previous bleeding and increasing age were risk factors for bleeding both during initial and extended treatment. CONCLUSION: Apixaban had a lower bleeding risk than warfarin or rivaroxaban during initial treatment. During extended treatment, bleeding risk was similar for apixaban and rivaroxaban, and higher with warfarin.

Initial therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban compared to prophylactic therapy with heparins in moderate to severe COVID-19: results of the COVID-PREVENT randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state. Current guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation upon hospitalization. METHODS: COVID-PREVENT, an open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial enrolled patients (≥ 18 years) with moderate to severe COVID-19 and age-adjusted D-dimers > 1.5 upper limit of normal (ULN). The participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily or thromboprophylaxis with a heparin (SOC) for at least 7 days followed by prophylactic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 28 days or no thromboprophylaxis. The primary efficacy outcome was the D-dimer level and the co-primary efficacy outcome the 7-category ordinal COVID-19 scale by WHO at 7 days post randomization. The secondary outcome was time to the composite event of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, new myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death or progression to intubation and invasive ventilation up to 35 days post randomization. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome D-dimer at 7 days was not different between patients assigned to therapeutic (n = 55) or prophylactic anticoagulation (n = 56) (1.21 mg/L [0.79, 1.86] vs 1.27 mg/L [0.79, 2.04], p = 0.78). In the whole study population D-dimer was significantly lower at 7 days compared to baseline (1.05 mg/L [0.75, 1.48] vs 1.57 mg/L [1.13, 2.19], p < 0.0001). Therapy with rivaroxaban compared to SOC was not associated an improvement on the WHO 7-category ordinal scale at 7 days (p = 0.085). Rivaroxaban improved the clinical outcome measured by the score in patients with a higher baseline D-dimer > 2.0 ULN (exploratory analysis; 0.632 [0.516, 0.748], p = 0.026). The secondary endpoint occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 12 (21.4%) in the SOC group (time-to-first occurrence of the components of the secondary outcome: HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.15-1.67; p = 0.264). There was no difference in fatal or non-fatal major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban compared to prophylactic anticoagulation with a heparin did not improve surrogates of clinical outcome in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Whether initial rivaroxaban at therapeutic doses might be superior to thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 and a high risk as defined by D-dimer > 2 ULN needs confirmation in further studies.

ORal anticoaGulants in diAbetic and Nondiabetic patients with nOn-valvular atrial fibrillatioN (ORGANON).

BACKGROUND: Diabetes represents a pro-thrombotic condition. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the effects of Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, newly diagnosed. The secondary objective was to evaluate the effects on the risk of bleeding. METHODS: We enrolled 300 patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. One hundred and sixteen patients were taking warfarin, 31 acenocumarol, 22 dabigatran, 80 rivaroxaban, 34 apixaban, and 17 edoxaban. We evaluated: anthropometric parameters, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and post-prandial glucose (FPG, and PPG), lipid profile, Lp(a), small and dense low-density lipoprotein (SD-LDL), oxidized LDL (Ox-LDL), I-troponin (I-Tn), creatinine, transaminases, iron, red blood cells (RBC); hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLT), fibrinogen, D-dimer, anti-thrombin III, C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), Metalloproteinases-2 (MMP-2), Metalloproteinases-9 (MMP-9), and incidence of bleeding. RESULTS: We did not record any differences among nondiabetic patients between VKA and DOACs. However, when we considered diabetic patients, we found a slight, but significant improvement of triglycerides and SD-LDL. As regards incidence of bleeding, minor bleeding was more frequent in VKA diabetic group compared to DOACs diabetic group; furthermore, the incidence of major bleeding was higher with VKA in nondiabetic and diabetic group, compared to patients with DOACs. Among DOACs, we recorded a higher incidence of bleeding (minor and major) with dabigatran compared to rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban in nondiabetic and diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: DOACs seem to be metabolically favourable in diabetic patients. Regarding incidence of bleeding, DOACs with the exception of dabigatran, seem better than VKA in diabetic patients.

Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer (GICA) are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Data from randomized clinical trials in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) conferred similar or superior efficacy but a heterogeneous safety profile in patients with GICA. We compared the safety and effectiveness of DOACs in patients with GICA and VTE at MD Anderson Cancer Center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients with GICA and VTE receiving treatment with DOACs for a minimum of 6 months. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and recurrent VTE. Secondary outcomes were time to bleeding and recurrent VTE. RESULTS: A cohort of 433 patients with GICA who were prescribed apixaban (n = 300), or rivaroxaban (n = 133) were included. MB occurred in 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-5.9), CRNMB in 5.3% (95% CI 3.4-7.9), and recurrent VTE in 7.4% (95% CI 5.1-10.3). The cumulative incidence rates of CRNMB and recurrent VTE were not significantly different when comparing apixaban to rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Apixaban and rivaroxaban had a similar risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding and could be considered as anticoagulant options in selected patients with GICA and VTE.

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.

Occurrence of intraocular hemorrhages under monotherapy or combination therapy of antiplatelets and anticoagulants using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.

Purpose: An intraocular hemorrhage is an adverse event that can lead to visual acuity impairment. Antithrombotic therapy with antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants may increase intraocular hemorrhage. However, since their frequency is low, studies on the risk of intraocular hemorrhage with these drugs, especially under combination therapy, are limited. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of intraocular hemorrhages under monotherapy and combination therapy with antiplatelets and anticoagulants by analyzing a large pharmacovigilance database. Methods: Intraocular hemorrhage signals with oral antiplatelets and anticoagulants were evaluated by calculating reporting odds ratios and information components using the Japan Adverse Drug Reactions Report database from April 2004 to March 2022. In addition, differences in signals between younger and elderly patients, affecting factors, and time-to-onset from initial antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatments were analyzed. Results: Aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, apixaban, and rivaroxaban, but not ticagrelor, ticlopidine, prasugrel, dabigatran, and edoxaban showed intraocular hemorrhage signals under monotherapy. In combination therapy, dual therapy (aspirin + P2Y12 inhibitors, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants, and P2Y12 inhibitors + warfarin) and triple therapy (aspirin + P2Y12 inhibitors + warfarin) resulted in intraocular hemorrhage signals. Intraocular hemorrhage signals were observed in younger patients receiving monotherapy with aspirin and in elderly patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy with warfarin. Affecting factors were diabetes mellitus in patients with prasugrel, use of medications for intravitreal injections, and posterior sub-Tenon injections with some antiplatelets and anticoagulants. The median period of intraocular hemorrhage occurrence after starting monotherapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, or rivaroxaban was within 90 days. Conclusion: In addition to monotherapy with several antiplatelets and anticoagulants, combination therapy using aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, and warfarin has the potential risk of intraocular hemorrhage. Particular attention should be paid to the occurrence of intraocular hemorrhages in younger patients taking aspirin, in elderly patients taking warfarin, and within the first 90 days of antiplatelet and anticoagulant use.

Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).   For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To conduct an update of the ASCO venous thromboembolism (VTE) guideline. METHODS: After publication of potentially practice-changing clinical trials, identified through ASCO's signals approach to updating, an updated systematic review was performed for two guideline questions: perioperative thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between November 1, 2018, and June 6, 2022. RESULTS: Five RCTs provided information that contributed to changes to the 2019 recommendations. Two RCTs addressed direct factor Xa inhibitors (either rivaroxaban or apixaban) for extended thromboprophylaxis after surgery. Each of these postoperative trials had important limitations but suggested that these two oral anticoagulants are safe and effective in the settings studied. An additional three RCTs addressed apixaban in the setting of VTE treatment. Apixaban was effective in reducing the risk of recurrent VTE, with a low risk of major bleeding. RECOMMENDATIONS: Apixaban and rivaroxaban were added as options for extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery, with a weak strength of recommendation. Apixaban was also added as an option for the treatment of VTE, with high quality of evidence and a strong recommendation.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

[Treatment of a severely injured with active bleeding under apixaban and residual anticoagulatory activity]. / Schwerstverletztenversorgung mit aktiver Blutung unter Apixaban und gerinnungsrelevanter Restaktivität.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are increasingly being prescribed for prophylaxis of thromboembolic events. Their use, particularly in emergency settings is difficult as blood level measurements are often not immediately available and until recently there was no possibility for reversal. This article presents the case of a severely injured patient with life-threatening traumatic bleeding under long-term treatment with the factor Xa inhibitor apixaban, viscoelasticity-based detection of residual systemic anticoagulatory activity and targeted reversal.

Reduced dose direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin with high time in therapeutic range in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are dose-reduced in elderly and patients with impaired renal function. Only reduced dose dabigatran is concluded as having similar stroke risk reduction and lower risk of major bleeding than warfarin in the pivotal studies. In clinical practice, reduced dose is prescribed more often than expected making this an important issue. The objective of this study was to compare effectiveness and safety between reduced dose DOACs and high TTR warfarin treatment (TTR ≥ 70%) in NVAF. A Swedish anticoagulation registry was used in identifying eligible patients from July 2011 to December 2017. The study cohort consisted of 40,564 patients with newly initiated DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban) (11,083 patients) or warfarin treatment (29,481 patients) after exclusion of 374,135 patients due to not being warfarin or DOAC naïve, not being prescribed reduced dose, having previous mechanical heart valve (MHV), or being under 18 years old. The median durations of follow up were 365, 419, 432 and 473 days for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively. Warfarin TTR identified from Auricula was 70.0%. Endpoints (stroke and major bleeding) and baseline characteristics were collected from hospital administrative registers using ICD-10 codes. Cohorts were compared using weighted adjusted Cox regression after full optimal matching based on propensity scores. DOACs are associated with lower risk of major bleeding (HR with 95% CI) 0.85 (0.78-0.93), intracranial bleeding HR 0.64 (0.51-0.80), hemorrhagic stroke HR 0.68 (0.50-0.92), gastrointestinal bleeding HR 0.81 (0.69-0.96) and all-cause stroke HR 0.87 (0.76-0.99), than warfarin. Apixaban and dabigatran are associated with lower risk of major bleeding, HR 0.70 (0.63-0.78) and HR 0.80 (0.69-0.94), and rivaroxaban is associated with lower risk of ischemic stroke, HR 0.73 (0.59-0.96), with higher major bleeding risk, HR 1.31 (1.15-1.48), compared to warfarin. Apixaban is associated with higher all-cause mortality compared to warfarin, HR 1.12 (1.03-1.21). DOACs are associated with lower risk of major bleeding and all-cause stroke, than high quality warfarin treatment, with exception of rivaroxaban that carried higher risk of major bleeding and lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism. In this large observational registry-based NVAF cohort, DOACs are preferred treatment in patients with indication for DOAC dose reduction, even in a high TTR setting.

Severe Bleeding Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Stroke Prevention and Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting severe bleeding events in patients taking DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). In this frequency-based network meta-analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for reporting. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 87,616 patients were enrolled. The bleeding safety of DOACs for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: fatal bleeding: edoxaban (SUCRA,80.2), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,68.3), apixaban (SUCRA,48.5), dabigatran (SUCRA,40.0), VKAs (SUCRA,12.9); major bleeding: dabigatran (SUCRA,74.0), apixaban (SUCRA,71.5), edoxaban (SUCRA,66.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,22.7), VKAs (SUCRA,15.4); gastrointestinal bleeding: apixaban (SUCRA,55.9), VKAs (SUCRA,53.7), edoxaban (SUCRA,50.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,50.4), dabigatran (SUCRA,39.5); intracranial hemorrhage: dabigatran (SUCRA,84.6), edoxaban (SUCRA,74.1), apixaban (SUCRA,65.8), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,24.4), VKAs (SUCRA,1.1). CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF, the most safe DOAC is edoxaban in terms of fatal bleeding; dabigatran in terms of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage and apixaban in terms of gastrointestinal bleeding. However, given the nature of indirect comparisons, more high-quality evidence from head-to-head comparisons is still needed to confirm them.

Use of Apixaban in Atrial Fibrillation With Ritonavir-Boosted Antiretroviral Therapy: A Case Report.

Purpose: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) pose a challenge when given with potent CYP3A4 and P-gp inhibitors, such as the commonly prescribed pharmacokinetic booster ritonavir. As per the manufacturer, apixaban offers a dose reduction when administered concurrently with ritonavir; thus, we explore the clinical indication and safety of apixaban when given with ritonavir-boosted highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in an HIV patient. Summary: We describe a 73-year-old male with extensive cardiac history, including a past medical history of resolved left ventricular thrombus, newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin, and HIV infection treated with ritonavir-boosted HAART. The patient presented to the emergency department with bleeding from multiple sites, necessitating the use of vitamin K. Consequently, his hospital course was complicated by episodes of minor bleeding and labile INR. Due to the complicated nature of his condition and the potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs), he was transitioned from warfarin to apixaban. Since there is little readily available data to support the use of rivaroxaban and dabigatran with ritonavir, our patient was safely started on dose-reduced apixaban for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation due to the predictable nature of apixaban pharmacokinetics and proven superiority regarding adverse effects, as compared to other DOACs. Conclusion: Dose-reduced apixaban is a safe and viable choice in patients with atrial fibrillation warranting stroke prophylaxis while concurrently receiving ritonavir-boosted HAART.