Predictive factors for bleeding during treatment with rivaroxaban and warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation - Subgroup analysis of J-ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: Results from the J-ROCKET AF study revealed that rivaroxaban was non-inferior to warfarin with respect to the principal safety outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. This subgroup analysis evaluated whether non-major clinically relevant bleeding (NMCRB) could be a predictive factor for major bleeding (MB). Other predictive factors for MB were also obtained in both rivaroxaban and warfarin treatment groups. METHODS: The temporal incidence of MB was compared between the rivaroxaban and warfarin treatment groups. Assessment was made whether MB events were often preceded by NMCRB. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify any independent predictive factors for MB in both treatment groups. RESULTS: The incidences of MB and NMCRB were 18.04% (138/639 patients) in the rivaroxaban arm, and 16.42% in the warfarin arm (124/639 patients). NMCRB preceded MB in only four patients in each treatment group (rivaroxaban: 4/117 and warfarin: 4/98). Multivariate analysis identified predictive factors for bleeding events: anemia with warfarin treatment and concomitant use of antiplatelet agents with rivaroxaban treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this subgroup analysis, particularly the fact that there was no repeated or sequential pattern between NMCRB and MB occurrences in both treatment groups, suggests that NMCRB might not be a predictive factor for MB. On the contrary, anemia and concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy were likely predictive factors for bleeding with warfarin and rivaroxaban treatment, respectively.

Shortened length of hospital stay with rivaroxaban in patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism in Japan: the J-EINSTEIN pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis program.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, the standard of care for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) consists of intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) followed by warfarin, which was recently compared with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, in randomized trials. AIM: To examine the length of hospital stay in patients with PE and/or DVT receiving rivaroxaban compared to Japanese standard therapy in the Japanese (J)-EINSTEIN PE and DVT program. METHODS: Open-label, randomized clinical trials that compared 3, 6, or 12 months of rivaroxaban with UFH and warfarin in patients with acute, confirmed symptomatic proximal PE and/or DVT. Decisions regarding hospital admission and/or discharge were left to the clinical judgment of attending physicians. Analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: In the ITT population (N = 97), overall patient characteristics were similar in both treatment arms. The median length of stay in rivaroxaban patients was 10.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0 to 15.0 days) while it was 15.0 days (IQR 9.0 to 22.0) for patients on standard therapy (p = 0.016). All of the four DVT patients who were not hospitalized for the index event were in the rivaroxaban arm. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that treatment with rivaroxaban may significantly reduce the length of hospital stay in patients hospitalized for PE and/or DVT compared with the current standard of care in Japan, thereby reducing the burden on patients and the healthcare system. The limitations of our study include small sample size and the generalizability of the findings to the real-world setting. Further research is warranted to identify PE and/or DVT patients in Japanese clinical practice who may potentially be managed as outpatients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01516814 and NCT01516840.

Long-term safety and efficacy of high-dose controlled-release nifedipine (80 mg per day) in Japanese patients with essential hypertension.

High-dose calcium channel blocker (CCB) shows strong blood pressure (BP) lowering effect. Currently available of controlled-release (CR) nifedipine 80 mg per day clinical data are limited to monotherapy and short-term or long-term retrospective studies. We report the safety and efficacy results of a 52-week, prospective open-label study, in which Japanese patients with essential hypertension were treated with CR nifedipine [80 mg per day; 40 mg bis in die (BID; twice daily)] in combination with other antihypertensive drugs. The patients with inadequate BP control despite treatment with CR nifedipine (40 mg once daily) in combination with other antihypertensive drugs were enrolled. The primary objective of this study was to assess the long-term safety of CR nifedipine (80 mg per day). Efficacy variables included changes in the mean sitting BP, the target BP achievement rate and the BP response rate. CR nifedipine (80 mg per day) was generally well tolerated, with the most common drug-related treatment-emergent adverse event being tachycardia (6.9% of patients). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in three (4.2%) patients. By week 52, the mean reductions in sitting systolic and diastolic BP were 19.4 and 13.6 mm Hg, respectively. The target BP achievement and BP response rates after 52 weeks of treatment were 32.4 and 63.4%, respectively. Based on these findings, long-term treatment with CR nifedipine at 40 mg BID in combination with antihypertensive drugs was well tolerated and effective in Japanese patients with essential hypertension.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in relation to hypertension: a subgroup analysis of the J-ROCKET AF trial.

The majority of the patients enrolled in the rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) trial had hypertension. In this subgroup analysis, we investigated differences in the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban and warfarin in subjects with and without hypertension. The baseline blood pressure (BP) measurements of patients with hypertension in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups were 130/77 mm Hg and 131/77 mm Hg, respectively, whereas those of patients without hypertension were 123/74 mm Hg and 124/73 mm Hg, respectively. The incidence rates of the principal safety outcomes in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups were 18.39% per year and 16.81% per year, respectively, among patients with baseline hypertension (hazard ratio (HR): 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-1.45) and 16.71% per year and 15.00% per year, respectively, among patients without hypertension at baseline (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.66-1.97), indicating no significant interaction (P=0.933). The incidence rates of the primary efficacy endpoints in the rivaroxaban group and the warfarin group were 0.54% per year and 2.24% per year, respectively, in patients without baseline hypertension (HR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.03-2.25), and 1.45% per year and 2.71% per year, respectively, in patients with baseline hypertension (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.25-1.16), indicating no significant interaction (P=0.509). In conclusion, the safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban was similar to that of warfarin, independent of baseline hypertensive status.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in relation to the CHADS2 score: a subgroup analysis of the J-ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from a trial of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in 1280 Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) revealed that rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the principal safety outcome. In this subanalysis, we investigated the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban and warfarin in relation to patients' CHADS2 scores. RESULTS: The mean CHADS2 score was 3.25, and the most frequent scores were 3 and 4. No statistically significant interactions were observed between principal safety outcome event rates and CHADS2 scores with respect to treatment groups (P value for interaction = .700). Irrespective of stratification into moderate- and high-risk groups based on CHADS2 scores of 2 and 3 or more, respectively, no differences in principal safety outcome event rates were observed between rivaroxaban- and warfarin-treated patients (moderate-risk group: hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], .58-1.95; high-risk group: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, .86-1.45; P value for interaction = .488). The primary efficacy end point rate in the rivaroxaban-treated group was numerically lower than in the warfarin-treated group, regardless of risk group stratification (moderate-risk group: HR, .46; 95% CI, .09-2.37; high-risk group: HR, .49; 95% CI, .22-1.11; P value for interaction = .935). CONCLUSION: This subanalysis indicated that the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin were similar, regardless of CHADS2 score.

Net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a subgroup analysis of J-ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors that have been identified for bleeding events with rivaroxaban are predominantly the same as those predicting thromboembolic ones in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Our aim was to determine the net clinical benefit (NCB) from the results of the J-ROCKET AF trial, in which rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin in Japanese patients with AF. METHODS: Two strategies were adopted to quantify the NCB. First, the NCB was calculated as the number of ischemic strokes avoided with anticoagulation minus the number of excess intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) with a weight of 1.5. Second, the composite end point of major bleeding events and secondary efficacy end points (stroke, noncentral nervous system systemic embolism, myocardial infarction and death) to ascertain the NCB were established. Subgroup analysis by CHADS2 score or creatinine clearance was also performed. RESULTS: The adjusted NCB, which was given a weight of 1.5 for ICH, was nominally significant in favor of rivaroxaban therapy (difference in incidence rate -2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -.26 to -3.99). Furthermore, the event rate of the composite end point tended to be lower in patients treated with rivaroxaban than in those treated with warfarin (rivaroxaban: 4.97% per year, warfarin: 6.11% per year; difference in incidence rate: -1.14; 95% CI: -3.40 to 1.12). The event rate of the composite end point tended to be consistently low in patients treated with rivaroxaban in the subanalysis by CHADS2 score and renal function. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the NCB supports that rivaroxaban therapy provides clinical benefit for Japanese patients with AF.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for the secondary prevention of stroke: a subgroup analysis of J-ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: The overall analysis of the rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) trial revealed that rivaroxaban was not inferior to warfarin with respect to the primary safety outcome. In addition, there was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic embolism with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. METHODS: In this subanalysis of the J-ROCKET AF trial, we investigated the consistency of safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among the subgroups of patients with previous stroke, transient ischemic attack, or non-central nervous system systemic embolism (secondary prevention group) and those without (primary prevention group). RESULTS: Patients in the secondary prevention group were 63.6% of the overall population of J-ROCKET AF. In the secondary prevention group, the rate of the principal safety outcome (% per year) was 17.02 in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 18.26 in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.29), while the rate of the primary efficacy endpoint was 1.66 in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 3.25 in warfarin-treated patients (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.23-1.14). There were no significant interactions in the principal safety and the primary efficacy endpoints of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin between the primary and secondary prevention groups (P=.090 and .776 for both interactions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was consistent among patients in the primary prevention group and those in the secondary prevention group.

Safety and efficacy of adjusted dose of rivaroxaban in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: subanalysis of J-ROCKET AF for patients with moderate renal impairment.

BACKGROUND: In the Japanese Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) study, rivaroxaban 15 mg once daily was given to patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 50 ml/min (preserved renal function), and was reduced to 10mg once daily in patients with CrCl 30-49 ml/min (moderate renal impairment). The aim of this subanalysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of the adjusted dose of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in a cohort with moderate renal impairment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Compared with patients with preserved renal function, those with moderate renal impairment (22.2% of all randomized patients) had higher rates of bleeding and stroke events irrespective of study treatment. Among those with moderate renal impairment, the principal safety endpoint occurred at 27.76%/year with rivaroxaban vs. 22.85%/year with warfarin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-1.91) and the rate of the primary efficacy endpoint was 2.77%/year vs. 3.34%/year (HR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.25-2.69), respectively. There were no significant interactions between renal function and study treatment in the principal safety and the primary efficacy endpoints (P=0.628, 0.279 for both interactions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin were consistent in patients with moderate renal impairment and preserved renal function.

Plasma proteomics of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation on chronic anti-coagulation with warfarin or a direct factor Xa inhibitor.

Plasma proteins mediate thrombogenesis, inflammation, endocardial injury and structural remodelling in atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesised that anti-coagulation with rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor, would differentially modulate biologically-relevant plasma proteins, compared with warfarin, a multi-coagulation protein antagonist. We performed unbiased liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectroscopy and candidate multiplexed protein immunoassays among Japanese subjects with non-valvular chronic AF who were randomly assigned to treatment with 24 weeks of rivaroxaban (n=93) or warfarin (n=94). Nine metaproteins, including fibulin-1 (p=0.0033), vitronectin (p=0.0010), haemoglobin α (p=0.0012), apolipoproteins C-II (p=0.0017) and H (p=0.0023), complement C5 precursor (p=0.0026), coagulation factor XIIIA (p=0.0026) and XIIIB (p=0.0032) subunits, and 10 candidate proteins, including thrombomodulin (p=0.0004), intercellular adhesion molecule-3 (p=0.0064), interleukin-8 (p=0.0007) and matrix metalloproteinase-3 (p=0.0003), were differentially expressed among patients with and without known clinical risk factors for stroke and bleeding in AF. Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban treatment was associated with a greater increase in thrombomodulin (Δ 0.1 vs. 0.3 pg/ml, p=0.0026) and a trend towards a reduction in matrix metalloproteinase-9 (Δ 2.2 vs. -4.9 pg/ml, p=0.0757) over 24 weeks. Only modest correlations were observed between protein levels and prothrombin time, factor Xa activity and prothrombinase-induced clotting time. Plasma proteomics can identify distinct functional patterns of protein expression that report on known stroke and bleeding risk phenotypes in an ethnically-homogeneous AF population. The greater upregulation of thrombomodulin among patients randomised to rivaroxaban represents a proof-of-principle that pharmacoproteomics can be employed to discern novel effects of factor Xa inhibition beyond standard pharmacodynamic measures.