Differential modulation of polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with myocardial infarction treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel.

Untargeted metabolomics is used to refine the development of biomarkers for the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. Myocardial infarction (MI) has major individual and societal consequences for patients, who remain at high risk of secondary events, despite advances in pharmacological therapy. To monitor their differential response to treatment, we performed untargeted plasma metabolomics on 175 patients from the platelet inhibition and patient outcomes (PLATO) trial treated with ticagrelor and clopidogrel, two common P2Y12 inhibitors. We identified a signature that discriminates patients, which involves polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and particularly the omega-3 fatty acids docosahexaenoate and eicosapentaenoate. The known cardiovascular benefits of PUFAs could contribute to the efficacy of ticagrelor. Our work, beyond pointing out the high relevance of untargeted metabolomics in evaluating response to treatment, establishes PUFA metabolism as a pathway of clinical interest in the recovery path from MI.

Preclinical Development of a vWF Aptamer to Limit Thrombosis and Engender Arterial Recanalization of Occluded Vessels.

Endothelial surface and circulating glycoprotein von Willebrand factor (vWF) regulates platelet adhesion and is associated with thrombotic diseases, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease. Thrombosis, as manifested in these diseases, is the leading cause of disability and death in the western world. Current parenteral antithrombotic and thrombolytic agents used to treat these conditions are limited by a short therapeutic window, irreversibility, and major risk of hemorrhage. To overcome these limitations, we developed a novel anti-vWF aptamer, called DTRI-031, that selectively binds and inhibits vWF-mediated platelet adhesion and arterial thrombosis while enabling rapid reversal of this antiplatelet activity by an antidote oligonucleotide (AO). Aptamer DTRI-031 exerts dose-dependent inhibition of platelet aggregation and thrombosis in whole blood and mice, respectively. Moreover, DTRI-031 can achieve potent vascular recanalization of platelet-rich thrombotic occlusions in murine and canine carotid arteries. Finally, DTRI-031 activity is rapidly (<5 min) and completely reversed by AO administration in a murine saphenous vein hemorrhage model, and murine toxicology studies indicate the aptamer is well tolerated. These findings suggest that targeting vWF with an antidote-controllable aptamer potentially represents an effective and safer treatment for thrombosis patients having platelet-rich arterial occlusions in the brain, heart, or periphery.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Bleeding Risk in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Analysis From the ROCKET AF Trial.

Background There is concern that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRI s) substantially increase bleeding risk in patients taking anticoagulants. Methods and Results We studied 737 patients taking SSRI s in the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Embolism and Stroke Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. These patients were propensity score matched 1:1 to 737 patients not taking SSRI s. The primary outcome measure was major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding events, the principal safety outcome in ROCKET AF . Over a mean 1.6 years of follow-up, the rate of major/ nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was 18.57 events/100 patient-years for SSRI users versus 16.84 events/100 patient-years for matched comparators, adjusted hazard ratio ( aHR ) of 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.43). The aHR s were similar in patients taking rivaroxaban ( aHR 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82-1.51]) and those taking warfarin ( aHR 1.21 [95% CI, 0.91-1.60]). For the rarer outcome of major bleeding, the aHR for SSRI users versus those not taking SSRI s was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.62-2.06) for rivaroxaban; for warfarin, the aHR was higher, at 1.58 (95% CI , 0.96-2.60) but not statistically significantly elevated. Conclusions We found no significant increase in bleeding risk when SSRI s were combined with anticoagulant therapy, although there was a suggestion of increased bleeding risk with SSRI s added to warfarin. While physicians should be vigilant regarding bleeding risk, our results provide reassurance that SSRI s can be safely added to anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation . Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 00403767.

Outcome of Patients Receiving Thrombolytic Therapy While on Rivaroxaban for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (from Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation).

The safety of intravenous thrombolysis in patients taking rivaroxaban has not been well established. We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of all patients who received thrombolytic therapy 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). A review of medical and adverse event records for patients receiving thrombolytic therapy while enrolled in ROCKET AF was performed to determine their baseline characteristics, indications for thrombolysis, and type of agent used. Safety end points were 30-day post-thrombolytic rates of stroke, bleeding, and mortality. A total of 28 patients in ROCKET AF received thrombolytic therapy, with 19 patients on rivaroxaban and 9 patients on warfarin. Ischemic stroke was the most common indication for thrombolysis (n = 10), and alteplase was the most commonly used fibrinolytic agent (n = 14). Of the 19 patients in the rivaroxaban group, there were 2 nonfatal bleeding events and 2 deaths, mostly occurring when thrombolytic therapy was administered within 48 hours of the last rivaroxaban dose. Of the 9 patients in the warfarin group, there was 1 nonfatal bleeding event and 3 deaths, most occurring when thrombolytic therapy was administered outside of 48 hours from the last warfarin dose. In conclusion, these observations suggest that careful assessment of the time since the last dose may be of clinical significance in patients on novel oral anticoagulants who require emergent thrombolysis.

Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients from mainland China with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A subgroup analysis from the ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: The ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban versus dose-adjusted warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In this analysis, we compared rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with AF from China, East Asia, and the rest of the world (ROW). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed baseline demographics and interaction of treatment effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among patients from mainland China, other East Asian countries, and ROW. Of the 14,236 patients enrolled in the per-protocol population, 495 were from mainland China, 433 from other East-Asian regions, and 13,308 from the rest of the world (ROW). At baseline, patients from China had significantly higher rates of previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) compared with patients from other East Asian regions and ROW (79.6%, 44.6%, 51.6% respectively; p<0.0001) and lower rates of VKA use (33.7%, 66.7%, 63.4%, respectively; p<0.0001). The rates of stroke or systemic embolism among those on warfarin while on treatment was 5.23% in patients from China, 1.82% in those from other East Asian regions, and 2.07% from ROW; on rivaroxaban, the rates were 2.29% in patients from China, 1.86% in those from other east Asian regions, and 1.67% from ROW. There were no significant treatment-by-region interactions for any efficacy or safety outcome (all p>0.12). Numerically higher rates of intracranial bleeding were seen in patients from China receiving warfarin versus rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: In patients from China, rates of intracranial hemorrhage were numerically lower among those receiving rivaroxaban and consistent with the overall trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Use of concomitant aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation: Findings from the ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the relationship between aspirin use and clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in 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), in particular, those with known coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Patients in ROCKET AF, comparing rivaroxaban and warfarin, were analyzed. Aspirin use was assessed at baseline. Stroke and systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, death, and major or nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding were compared between groups. Multivariable modeling was done adjusting for baseline risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 5,205 (36.5%) patients were receiving aspirin at baseline (mean dose 99.2mg); 30.6% of those had known CAD. Patients receiving aspirin were more likely to have prior myocardial infarction (22% vs 14%; P<.001) and heart failure (68% vs 59%; P<.001). Relative efficacy of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was similar with and without aspirin use for both stroke/systemic embolism (P=.95 for interaction), and major or NMCR bleeding (P=.76 for interaction). After adjustment, aspirin use was associated with similar rates of stroke/systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37; P=.094) but higher rates of all-cause death (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.13-1.42; P<.0001) and major or NMCR bleeding (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.21-1.43; P<.0001). There was a significant interaction between no CAD at baseline and aspirin for all-cause death (P=.009). CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use at baseline was associated with an increased risk for bleeding and all-cause death in ROCKET AF, a risk most pronounced in patients without known CAD. Although these findings may reflect unmeasured clinical factors, further investigation is warranted to determine optimal aspirin use in patients with AF.

Blood pressure control and stroke or bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: Results from the ROCKET AF Trial.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective analysis examining the association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) or hypertension bracket and stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The study included 14,256 anticoagulated patients in the ROCKET AF trial. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of adverse outcomes by European Society of Cardiology hypertension bracket and screening SBP. RESULTS: In total, 90.5% of patients had hypertension (55.8% controlled, 34.6% uncontrolled). The adjusted risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) increased significantly for every 10-mm Hg increase in screening SBP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). There was a trend toward an increased adjusted risk of stroke or SE in patients with controlled (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89-1.66) and uncontrolled hypertension (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03-1.95) (P = .06). In contrast, the adjusted risk of major bleeding was similar between hypertensive brackets and did not vary significantly by screening SBP. The benefit of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in preventing stroke or SE was consistent among patients regardless of SBP (P interaction = .69). CONCLUSIONS: In a trial of anticoagulated patients with AF, increasing screening SBP was independently associated with stroke and SE, and one-third of patients had uncontrolled hypertension. The relative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin were consistent across all levels of screening SBP. A single SBP may be an important factor in reducing the overall risk of stroke and SE in anticoagulated patients with AF.

Use of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy and Patient Outcomes in Those Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The ROCKET AF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation). BACKGROUND: The frequency, patterns, and outcomes when adding DAPT to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in the setting of PCI in patients with AF are largely unknown. METHODS: The study population included all patients in the treatment group of the ROCKET AF trial divided by the receipt of PCI during follow-up. Clinical characteristics, PCI frequency, and rates of DAPT were reported. Clinical outcomes were adjudicated independently as part of the trial. RESULTS: Among 14,171 patients, 153 (1.1%) underwent PCI during a median 806 days of follow-up. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were significantly less likely to undergo PCI compared with warfarin-treated patients (61 vs. 92; p = 0.01). Study drug was continued during PCI in 81% of patients. Long-term DAPT (≥30 days) was used in 37% and single antiplatelet therapy in 34%. A small number switched from DAPT to monotherapy within 30 days of PCI (n = 19 [12.3%]) and 15% of patients received no antiplatelet therapy after PCI. Rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding events were high in post-PCI patients (4.5/100 patient-years and 10.2/100 patient-years) in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF at moderate to high risk for stroke, PCI occurred in <1% per year. DAPT was used in a variable manner, with the majority of patients remaining on study drug after PCI. Rates of both thrombotic and bleeding events were high after PCI, highlighting the need for studies to determine the optimal antithrombotic therapy.

On-Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Worsening Renal Function With Rivaroxaban Compared With Warfarin: Insights From ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: Despite rapid clinical adoption of novel anticoagulants, it is unknown whether outcomes differ among patients with worsening renal function (WRF) taking these new drugs compared with warfarin. We aimed to determine whether the primary efficacy (stroke or systemic embolism) and safety (major bleeding and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding) end points from the ROCKET AF trial (Rivaroxaban Once-Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation trial) differed among participants with WRF taking rivaroxaban and those taking warfarin. METHODS: After excluding patients without at least 1 follow-up creatinine measurement (n=1624), we included all remaining patients (n=12 612) randomly assigned to either rivaroxaban or dose-adjusted warfarin. On-treatment WRF (a decrease of >20% from screening creatinine clearance measurement at any time point during the study) was evaluated as a time-dependent covariate in Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients with stable renal function (n=9292) and WRF (n=3320). Rates of stroke or systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, and bleeding were also similar, but WRF patients experienced a higher incidence of vascular death versus stable renal function (2.21 versus 1.41 events per 100 patient-years; P=0.026). WRF patients who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban had a reduction in stroke or systemic embolism compared with those taking warfarin (1.54 versus 3.25 events per 100 patient-years) that was not seen in patients with stable renal function who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban (P=0.050 for interaction). There was no difference in major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding among WRF patients randomized to warfarin versus rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with on-treatment WRF, rivaroxaban was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism compared with warfarin, without an increase in the composite bleeding end point. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Native valve disease in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation on warfarin or rivaroxaban.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and aortic stenosis (AS) with patients with AF with mitral regurgitation (MR) or aortic regurgitation (AR) and patients without significant valve disease (no SVD). METHODS: Using 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) data, we analysed efficacy and safety outcomes, adjusting hazard ratios (HRs) for potential confounders using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 14 119 intention-to-treat ROCKET AF trial patients, a trial that excluded patients with mitral stenosis or artificial valve prosthesis, 214 had AS with or without other valve abnormalities, 1726 had MR or AR and 12 179 had no SVD. After adjusting for prognostic factors, the composite of stroke, systemic embolism or vascular death increased approximately twofold in patients with AS (AS 10.84, MR or AR 4.54 and no SVD 4.31 events per 100 patient-years, p=0.0001). All-cause death also significantly increased (AS 11.22, MR or AR 4.90 and no SVD 4.39 events per 100 patient-years, p=0.0003). Major bleeding occurred more frequently in AS (adjusted HR 1.61, confidence intervals (CI) 1.03 to 2.49, p<0.05) and MR or AR (HR 1.30, 1.07 to 1.57, p<0.01) than in no SVD, but there was no difference between AS and MR or AR (HR 1.24, 0.78 to 1.97). The relative efficacy of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was consistent among patients with and without valvular disease. Rivaroxaban was associated with higher rates of major bleeding than warfarin in patients with MR or AR (HR 1.63, 1.15 to 2.31). CONCLUSIONS: We found that patients with AF and AS on oral anticoagulants may have distinctly different efficacy and safety outcomes than patients with MR or AR or no SVD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00403767; Post-results.

The periprocedural management of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: rationale and a summary of the available evidence from phase 3 clinical trials.

The novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have rapidly emerged as an alternative therapy to warfarin. Several recent phase 3 randomized control trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the NOACs in the treatment for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. As the NOACs are incorporated in clinical practice, questions have begun to arise concerning their optimal use in commonly encountered situations. In this review, we provide a summary of the available evidence from the phase 3 randomized control trials specifically with regard to 1 such scenario, the periprocedural management of NOACs, with a goal of providing guidance for practicing clinicians.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation but underlying native mitral and aortic valve disease participating in the ROCKET AF trial.

AIMS: We investigated clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with significant valvular disease (SVD) 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. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROCKET AF excluded patients with mitral stenosis or artificial valve prostheses. We used Cox regression to adjust comparisons for potential confounders. Among 14 171 patients, 2003 (14.1%) had SVD; they were older and had more comorbidities than patients without SVD. The rate of stroke or systemic embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin was consistent among patients with SVD [2.01 vs. 2.43%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.27] and without SVD (1.96 vs. 2.22%; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.07; interaction P = 0.76). However, rates of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin were higher in patients with SVD (19.8% rivaroxaban vs. 16.8% warfarin; HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.49) vs. those without (14.2% rivaroxaban vs. 14.1% warfarin; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.10; interaction P = 0.034), even when controlling for risk factors and potential confounders. In intracranial haemorrhage, there was no interaction between patients with and without SVD where the overall rate was lower among those randomized to rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with 'non-valvular atrial fibrillation' have significant valve lesions. Their risk of stroke is similar to that of patients without SVD after controlling for stroke risk factors. Efficacy of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin was similar in patients with and without SVD; however, the observed risk of bleeding was higher with rivaroxaban in patients with SVD but was the same among those without SVD. Atrial fibrillation patients with and without SVD experience the same stroke-preventive benefit of oral anticoagulants.

Use and outcomes of antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation: results from the ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and anticoagulation are mainstays of atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To study the use and outcomes of AAD therapy in anticoagulated patients with AF. METHODS: Patients 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 trial (N = 14,264) were stratified by AAD use at baseline: amiodarone, other AAD, or no AAD. Multivariable adjustment was performed to compare stroke, bleeding, and death across AAD groups as well as across treatment assignment (rivaroxaban or warfarin). RESULTS: Of 14,264 patients randomized, 1681 (11.8%) were treated with an AAD (1144 [8%] with amiodarone and 537 [3.8%] with other AADs). Amiodarone-treated patients were less often female (38% vs 48%), had more persistent AF (64% vs 40%), and more concomitant heart failure (71% vs 41%) than were patients receiving other AADs. Patients receiving no AAD more closely resembled amiodarone-treated patients. Time in therapeutic range was significantly lower in warfarin-treated patients receiving amiodarone than in those receiving no AAD (50% vs 58%; P < .0001). Compared with no AAD, neither amiodarone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.31; P = .9) nor other AADs (adjusted HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.37-1.17; P = .15) were associated with increased mortality. Similar results were observed for embolic and bleeding outcomes. Treatment effects of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients receiving no AAD were consistent with results from the overall trial (primary end point: adjusted HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98; Pinteraction = .06; safety end point: adjusted HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.90-1.24; Pinteraction = .33). CONCLUSION: Treatment with AADs was not associated with increased morbidity or mortality in anticoagulated patients with AF. The effect of amiodarone on outcomes in patients receiving rivaroxaban requires further investigation.

Relationship between time in therapeutic range and comparative treatment effect of rivaroxaban and warfarin: results from the ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a standard quality measure of the use of warfarin. We assessed the relative effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin at the level of trial center TTR (cTTR) since such analysis preserves randomized comparisons. METHODS AND RESULTS: TTR was calculated using the Rosendaal method, without exclusion of international normalized ratio (INR) values performed during warfarin initiation. Measurements during warfarin interruptions >7 days were excluded. INRs were performed via standardized finger-stick point-of-care devices at least every 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint (stroke or non-central nervous system embolism) was examined by quartiles of cTTR and by cTTR as a continuous function. Centers with the highest cTTRs by quartile had lower-risk patients as reflected by lower CHADS2 scores (P<0.0001) and a lower prevalence of prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (P<0.0001). Sites with higher cTTR were predominantly from North America and Western Europe. The treatment effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on the primary endpoint was consistent across a wide range of cTTRs (P value for interaction=0.71). The hazard of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding increased with cTTR (P for interaction=0.001), however, the estimated reduction by rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the hazard of intracranial hemorrhage was preserved across a wide range of threshold cTTR values. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is consistent regardless of cTTR.

Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with heart failure and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: insights from ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: In 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), rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolic events and significantly reduced intracranial bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We explore the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 9033 (63.7%) patients had HF. The primary efficacy analysis was rates of stroke or systemic embolism (per 100 patient-years) by intention to treat. The safety outcomes were major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke during treatment. Patients with HF were younger (72 versus 74 years), more likely to have persistent atrial fibrillation (83.0% versus 77.6%), and had higher mean CHADS2 scores (3.7 versus 3.1). The efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was similar in patients with HF (1.90 versus 2.09) and without HF (2.10 versus 2.54; P-interaction=0.62). The risk of major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban was similar to warfarin in patients with HF (14.22 versus 14.02) and without HF (16.12 versus 15.35; P-interaction=0.99). A reduction in hemorrhagic stroke was observed with rivaroxaban in patients with HF as in the overall trial (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.76; P-interaction=0.067). Among patients with HF, the efficacy of rivaroxaban was similar, irrespective of ejection fraction <40 or ≥ 40% (P-interaction=0.38), New York Heart Association class I-II versus III-IV (P-interaction=0.68), HF preserved or reduced ejection fraction (P-interaction=0.35), or CHADS2 score 2 versus ≥ 3 (P-interaction=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-related outcomes were similar in patients with and without HF and across HF subgroups. These findings support the use of rivaroxaban as an alternative to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and HF. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

End of study transition from study drug to open-label vitamin K antagonist therapy: the ROCKET AF experience.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the previously reported excess of thromboembolic events during the 30 days after the end of study (EOS) visit when participants transitioned from blinded therapy to open-label vitamin K antagonist. METHODS AND RESULTS: At the EOS visit, open-label vitamin K antagonist was recommended, and the international normalized ratio (INR) was not to be measured until 3 days later to preserve blinding. We analyzed transition strategies, clinical outcomes, and INR values. Event rates are per 100 patient-years. A total of 9248 (65%) participants were taking study drug at EOS, and, between days 3 and 30, an excess of stroke and systemic embolic events were observed in participants assigned to rivaroxaban (rivaroxaban 22 events, event rate 6.42; warfarin 6 events, event rate 1.73; hazard ratio, 3.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-9.16; P=0.0044). No INR values were reported for ≈5% of participants transitioned to warfarin. By 30 days after EOS, 83% of the warfarin group and 52% of the rivaroxaban group had ≥1 therapeutic INR value. Median time to first therapeutic INR was 3 days in the warfarin group and 13 days in the rivaroxaban group. CONCLUSIONS: The excess of events at EOS was likely because of a period of inadequate anticoagulation in rivaroxaban participants switched to vitamin K antagonist therapy. If transition from rivaroxaban to vitamin K antagonist is needed, timely monitoring and careful dosing should be used to ensure consistent and adequate anticoagulation.

Clinical outcomes with rivaroxaban in patients transitioned from vitamin K antagonist therapy: a subgroup analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once-Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation), a large randomized, clinical trial, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin among vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-naive and VKA-experienced patients. DESIGN: Prespecified subgroup analysis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00403767). SETTING: Global. PATIENTS: 14,264 persons with atrial fibrillation. MEASUREMENTS: Interaction of the relative treatment effect of rivaroxaban and warfarin on stroke or systemic embolism among VKA-naive and VKA-experienced patients. RESULTS: Overall, 7897 (55.4%) patients were VKA-experienced and 6367 (44.6%) were VKA-naive. The effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on stroke or systemic embolism was consistent: Rates per 100 patient-years of follow-up were 2.32 versus 2.87 for VKA-naive patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.03]) and 1.98 versus 2.09 for VKA-experienced patients (HR, 0.94 [CI, 0.75 to 1.18]; interaction P = 0.36). During the first 7 days, rivaroxaban was associated with more bleeding than warfarin (HR in VKA-naive patients, 5.83 [CI, 3.25 to 10.44], and in VKA-experienced patients, 6.66 [CI, 3.83 to 11.58]; interaction P = 0.53). After 30 days, rivaroxaban was associated with less bleeding than warfarin in VKA-naive patients (HR, 0.84 [CI, 0.74 to 0.95]) and similar bleeding in VKA-experienced patients (HR, 1.06 [CI, 0.96 to 1.17]; interaction P = 0.003). LIMITATION: The trial was not designed to detect differences in these subgroups. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of rivaroxaban in VKA-experienced and VKA-naive patients was similar to that of the overall trial. There were more bleeding events within 7 days of study drug initiation with rivaroxaban, but after 30 days, rivaroxaban was associated with less bleeding in VKA-naive patients and similar bleeding in VKA-experienced patients. This information may be useful to clinicians considering a transition to rivaroxaban for patients receiving VKA therapy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Johnson & Johnson and Bayer HealthCare.

Impact of global geographic region on time in therapeutic range on warfarin anticoagulant therapy: data from the ROCKET AF clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy remains the most common method of stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a widely cited measure of the quality of VKA therapy. We sought to identify factors associated with TTR in a large, international clinical trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: TTR (international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0 to 3.0) was determined using standard linear interpolation in patients randomized to warfarin in the ROCKET AF trial. Factors associated with TTR at the individual patient level (i-TTR) were determined via multivariable linear regression. Among 6983 patients taking warfarin, recruited from 45 countries grouped into 7 regions, the mean i-TTR was 55.2% (SD 21.3%) and the median i-TTR was 57.9% (interquartile range 43.0% to 70.6%). The mean time with INR <2 was 29.1% and the mean time with an INR >3 was 15.7%. While multiple clinical features were associated with i-TTR, dominant determinants were previous warfarin use (mean i-TTR of 61.1% for warfarin-experienced versus 47.4% in VKA-naïve patients) and geographic region where patients were managed (mean i-TTR varied from 64.1% to 35.9%). These effects persisted in multivariable analysis. Regions with the lowest i-TTRs had INR distributions shifted toward lower INR values and had longer inter-INR test intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Independent of patient clinical features, the regional location of medical care is a dominant determinant of variation in i-TTR in global studies of warfarin. Regional differences in mean i-TTR are heavily influenced by subtherapeutic INR values and are associated with reduced frequency of INR testing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.