Associations between model-predicted rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics and efficacy and safety outcomes in the treatment of venous thromboembolism.

Anticoagulant plasma concentrations and patient characteristics might affect the benefit-risk balance of therapy. This study assessed the impact of model-predicted rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics on outcomes in patients receiving rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism treatment (VTE-T) using data from the phase 3 EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE studies. In the absence of measured rivaroxaban exposure, exposure estimates were predicted based on individual increases in prothrombin time (PT) and the known correlation between rivaroxaban plasma concentrations and PT dynamics. The composite efficacy outcomes evaluated were recurrent deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and recurrent DVT, PE and all-cause death; safety outcomes were major bleeding and the composite of major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding. Exposure-response relationships were evaluated using multivariate logistic and Cox regression for the twice-daily (BID) and once-daily (OD) dosing periods, respectively. Predicted rivaroxaban exposure and CrCl were significantly associated with both efficacy outcomes in the BID period. In the OD period, exposure was significantly associated with recurrent DVT and PE but not recurrent DVT, PE and all-cause death. The statistically significant exposure-efficacy relationships were shallow. Exposure-safety relationships were absent within the investigated exposure range. During both dosing periods, low baseline hemoglobin and prior bleeding were associated with the composite of major or NMCR bleeding. In conclusion, based on the underlying data and analysis, no reliable target window for exposure with improved benefit-risk could be identified within the investigated exposure range. Therefore, monitoring rivaroxaban levels is unlikely to be beneficial in VTE-T.

Predictors of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Embolic Strokes of Undetermined Source and Effects of Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin According to Risk Status: The NAVIGATE ESUS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) identifies patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke presumed due to embolism from several unidentified sources. Among patients with recent ESUS, we sought to determine independent predictors of recurrent ischemic stroke during treatment with aspirin or rivaroxaban and to assess the relative effects of these treatments according to risk. METHODS: Exploratory analyses of 7213 participants in the NAVIGATE ESUS international trial who were randomized to aspirin 100 mg/day or rivaroxaban 15 mg/day and followed for a median of 11 months, during which time there were 309 first recurrent ischemic strokes (4.6% per year). Baseline features were correlated with recurrent stroke by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The 7 independent predictors of recurrent stroke were stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) prior to the qualifying stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03 95% confidence internal [CI] 1.58-2.60), current tobacco user (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.24-2.12), age (HR 1.02 per year increase, 95%CI 1.01-1.03), diabetes (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01-1.64), multiple acute infarcts on neuroimaging (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.02), aspirin use prior to qualifying stroke (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02-1.70), and time from qualifying stroke to randomization (HR .98, 95% CI .97-.99). The rate of recurrent stroke rate was 2.6% per year for participants without any of these risk factors, and increased by an average of 45% for each independent predictor (P < .001). There were no significant interactions between treatment effects and independent stroke predictors or stroke risk status. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of ESUS patients, several features including prior stroke or TIA, advanced age, current tobacco user, multiple acute infarcts on neuroimaging, and diabetes independently identified those with an increased risk of ischemic stroke recurrence. The relative effects of rivaroxaban and aspirin were similar across the spectrum of independent stroke predictors and recurrent stroke risk status.

Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.

BACKGROUND: Embolic strokes of undetermined source represent 20% of ischemic strokes and are associated with a high rate of recurrence. Anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may result in a lower risk of recurrent stroke than aspirin. METHODS: We compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 15 mg) with aspirin (at a daily dose of 100 mg) for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with recent ischemic stroke that was presumed to be from cerebral embolism but without arterial stenosis, lacune, or an identified cardioembolic source. The primary efficacy outcome was the first recurrence of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism in a time-to-event analysis; the primary safety outcome was the rate of major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 7213 participants were enrolled at 459 sites; 3609 patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban and 3604 to receive aspirin. Patients had been followed for a median of 11 months when the trial was terminated early because of a lack of benefit with regard to stroke risk and because of bleeding associated with rivaroxaban. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 172 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 5.1%) and in 160 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.8%) (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.33; P=0.52). Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 158 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 4.7%) and in 156 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.7%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 1.8%) and in 23 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 0.7%) (hazard ratio, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.68 to 4.39; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was not superior to aspirin with regard to the prevention of recurrent stroke after an initial embolic stroke of undetermined source and was associated with a higher risk of bleeding. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Research and Development; NAVIGATE ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02313909 .).

The MARINER trial of rivaroxaban after hospital discharge for medical patients at high risk of VTE. Design, rationale, and clinical implications.

Hospital-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of premature death and disability worldwide. Evidence-based guidelines recommend that anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis be given to hospitalised medical patients at risk of VTE, but suggest against routine use of thromboprophylaxis beyond the hospital stay. The MARINER study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis using rivaroxaban, begun at hospital discharge and continued for 45 days, for preventing symptomatic VTE in high-risk medical patients. Eligible patients are identified using the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE VTE) risk score, combined with a laboratory test, D-dimer. The rivaroxaban regimen is 10 mg once daily for patients with CrCl ≥ 50 ml/min, or 7.5 mg once daily for patients with CrCl ≥ 30 ml/min and < 50 ml/min. The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of symptomatic VTE (lower extremity deep-vein thrombosis and non-fatal pulmonary embolism) and VTE-related death. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. A blinded clinical events committee adjudicates all suspected outcome events. The sample size is event-driven with an estimated total of 8,000 patients to acquire 161 primary outcome events. Study design features that distinguish MARINER from previous and ongoing thromboprophylaxis trials in medically ill patients are: (i) use of a validated risk assessment model (IMPROVE VTE) and D-dimer determination for identifying eligible patients at high risk of VTE, (ii) randomisation at the time of hospital discharge, (iii) a 45-day treatment period and (iv) restriction of the primary efficacy outcome to symptomatic VTE events.

Rivaroxaban: a novel oral anticoagulant for the prevention and treatment of several thrombosis-mediated conditions.

The development of rivaroxaban (XARELTO®) is an important new medical advance in the field of oral anticoagulation. Thrombosis-mediated conditions constitute a major burden for patients, healthcare systems, and society. For more than 60 years, the prevention and treatment of these conditions have been dominated by oral vitamin K antagonists (such as warfarin) and the injectable heparins. Thrombosis can lead to several conditions, including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, and/or death. Prevention and treatment of thrombosis with an effective, convenient-to-use oral anticoagulant with a favorable safety profile is critical, especially in an aging society in which the risk of thrombosis, and the potential for bleeding complications, is increasing. Rivaroxaban acts to prevent and treat thrombosis by potently inhibiting coagulation Factor Xa in the blood. Factor Xa converts prothrombin to thrombin, which initiates the formation of blood clots by converting fibrinogen to clot-forming fibrin and leads to platelet activation. After a large and novel clinical development program in over 75,000 patients to date, rivaroxaban has received approval for multiple indications in the United States, European Union, and other countries worldwide to prevent and treat several thrombosis-mediated conditions. This review will highlight some of the unique aspects of the rivaroxaban development program.

Giving monoclonal antibodies to healthy volunteers in phase 1 trials: is it safe?

Many monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have been studied in healthy volunteers in phase 1, but few data have been published on the safety of that practice. We aimed to review the available data, and thereby to estimate the risks of participation in phase 1trials of MAbs. We searched PubMed, the ClinicalTrials.gov database and Google, using the search terms 'monoclonal antibody', 'phase 1' and 'healthy volunteers'. We identified 70 completed trials of MAbs in healthy volunteers, but the published data were too sparse to allow confident assessment of the risks of MAbs in healthy volunteers. Our best estimate of risk of a life-threatening adverse event was between 1: 425 and 1: 1700 volunteer-trials, but all such events occurred in a single trial (of TGN1412). In a phase 1trial of a small molecule, the risk of death or a life-threatening adverse event appears to be 1: 100,000-1,000,000 volunteer-trials, which is similar to the risk of many ordinary daily activities. Most people would consider that level of risk to be 'minimal' or 'negligible' and, therefore, acceptable. On that basis, the safety record of MAbs in healthy volunteers has been ruined by the TGN1412 disaster. However, that experience is unlikely to be repeated, because of improvements in governance and practice of phase 1trials. If the experience of TGN1412 is disregarded, it seems reasonable to continue using healthy volunteers in phase 1trials of MAbs, provided that there are scientific and medical reasons to conclude that the risk is truly minimal.