Development and Validation of the DOAC Score: A Novel Bleeding Risk Prediction Tool for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical decision tools for assessing bleeding risk in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) have limited performance and were developed for individuals treated with warfarin. This study develops and validates a clinical risk score to personalize estimates of bleeding risk for individuals with atrial fibrillation taking direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). METHODS: Among individuals taking dabigatran 150 mg twice per day from 44 countries and 951 centers in this secondary analysis of the RE-LY trial (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), a risk score was developed to determine the comparative risk for bleeding on the basis of covariates derived in a Cox proportional hazards model. The risk prediction model was internally validated with bootstrapping. The model was then further developed in the GARFIELD-AF registry (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation), with individuals taking dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. To determine generalizability in external cohorts and among individuals on different DOACs, the risk prediction model was validated in the COMBINE-AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) pooled clinical trial cohort and the Quebec Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec and Med-Echo Administrative Databases (RAMQ) administrative database. The primary outcome was major bleeding. The risk score, termed the DOAC Score, was compared with the HAS-BLED score. RESULTS: Of the 5684 patients in RE-LY, 386 (6.8%) experienced a major bleeding event, within a median follow-up of 1.74 years. The prediction model had an optimism-corrected C statistic of 0.73 after internal validation with bootstrapping and was well-calibrated based on visual inspection of calibration plots (goodness-of-fit P=0.57). The DOAC Score assigned points for age, creatinine clearance/glomerular filtration rate, underweight status, stroke/transient ischemic attack/embolism history, diabetes, hypertension, antiplatelet use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory use, liver disease, and bleeding history, with each additional point scored associated with a 48.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-59.3%; P<0.001) increase in major bleeding in RE-LY. The score had superior performance to the HAS-BLED score in RE-LY (C statistic, 0.73 versus 0.60; P for difference <0.001) and among 12 296 individuals in GARFIELD-AF (C statistic, 0.71 versus 0.66; P for difference = 0.025). The DOAC Score had stronger predictive performance than the HAS-BLED score in both validation cohorts, including 25 586 individuals in COMBINE-AF (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.63; P for difference <0.001) and 11 945 individuals in RAMQ (C statistic, 0.65 versus 0.58; P for difference <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with atrial fibrillation potentially eligible for DOAC therapy, the DOAC Score can help stratify patients on the basis of expected bleeding risk.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding with extended anticoagulation: the VTE-PREDICT risk score.

AIMS: Deciding to stop or continue anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE) after initial treatment is challenging, as individual risks of recurrence and bleeding are heterogeneous. The present study aimed to develop and externally validate models for predicting 5-year risks of recurrence and bleeding in patients with VTE without cancer who completed at least 3 months of initial treatment, which can be used to estimate individual absolute benefits and harms of extended anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Competing risk-adjusted models were derived to predict recurrent VTE and clinically relevant bleeding (non-major and major) using 14 readily available patient characteristics. The models were derived from combined individual patient data from the Bleeding Risk Study, Hokusai-VTE, PREFER-VTE, RE-MEDY, and RE-SONATE (n = 15,141, 220 recurrences, 189 bleeding events). External validity was assessed in the Danish VTE cohort, EINSTEIN-CHOICE, GARFIELD-VTE, MEGA, and Tromsø studies (n = 59 257, 2283 recurrences, 3335 bleeding events). Absolute treatment effects were estimated by combining the models with hazard ratios from trials and meta-analyses. External validation in different settings showed agreement between predicted and observed risks up to 5 years, with C-statistics ranging from 0.48-0.71 (recurrence) and 0.61-0.68 (bleeding). In the Danish VTE cohort, 5-year risks ranged from 4% to 19% for recurrent VTE and 1% -19% for bleeding. CONCLUSION: The VTE-PREDICT risk score can be applied to estimate the effect of extended anticoagulant treatment for individual patients with VTE and to support shared decision-making.

Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Recent Advances, Unmet Needs, and Future Direction.

Cancer-associated thrombosis, with the incidence rising over the years, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Recent advances in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) include the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which provide a more convenient and effective option than low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Nonetheless, important unmet needs remain including an increased risk of bleeding in certain patient subgroups such as those with gastroesophageal cancer, concerns about drug-drug interactions, and management of patients with severe renal impairment. Although DOACs are more convenient than LMWH, persistence can decline over time. Factor XI inhibitors have potential safety advantages over DOACs because factor XI appears to be essential for thrombosis but not hemostasis. In phase II trials, some factor XI inhibitors were superior to enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after knee replacement surgery without increasing the risk of bleeding. Ongoing trials are assessing the efficacy and safety of factor XI inhibitors for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Oral anticoagulation across diabetic subtypes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

AIMS: This study aims to describe both management and prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), overall as well as by antidiabetic treatment, and to assess the influence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) on outcomes by DM status. METHODS: The study population comprised 52 010 newly diagnosed patients with AF, 11 542 DM and 40 468 non-DM, enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry. Follow-up was truncated at 2 years after enrolment. Comparative effectiveness of OAC versus no OAC was assessed by DM status using a propensity score overlap weighting scheme and weights were applied to Cox models. RESULTS: Patients with DM [39.3% oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), 13.4% insulin ± OAD, 47.2% on no antidiabetic drug] had higher risk profile, OAC use, and rates of clinical outcomes compared with patients without DM. OAC use was associated in patients without DM and patients with DM with lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (0.69-0.83), 0.74 (0.64-0.86), respectively] and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [0.69 (0.58-0.83), 0.70 (0.53-0.93), respectively]. The risk of major bleeding with OAC was similarly increased in patients without DM and those with DM [1.40 (1.14-1.71), 1.37 (0.99-1.89), respectively]. Patients with insulin-requiring DM had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE [1.91 (1.63-2.24)], [1.57 (1.06-2.35), respectively] compared with patients without DM, and experienced significant risk reductions of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE with OAC [0.73 (0.53-0.99); 0.50 (0.26-0.97), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: In both patients with DM and patients without DM with AF, OAC was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE. Patients with insulin-requiring DM derived significant benefit from OAC.

2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19.

The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group of experts aimed at establishing global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. The 2013, 2016, and 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines have been made available through a free, web-based mobile phone application. The 2022 clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a literature review up to Jan 1, 2022, include guidance for patients with cancer and with COVID-19. Key recommendations (grade 1A or 1B) include: (1) low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the initial (first 10 days) treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis; (2) direct oral anticoagulants for the initial treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in patients who are not at high risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, in the absence of strong drug-drug interactions or of gastrointestinal absorption impairment; (3) LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants for a minimum of 6 months to treat cancer-associated thrombosis; (4) extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWHs to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism after major abdominopelvic surgery in patients not at high risk of bleeding; and (5) primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism with LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban or apixaban) in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are treated with anticancer therapy and have a low risk of bleeding.

Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory patients receiving systemic cancer therapy are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism. However, the benefit of thromboprophylaxis in these patients is uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial involving high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer (Khorana score of ≥2, on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism), we randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive rivaroxaban (at a dose of 10 mg) or placebo daily for up to 180 days, with screening every 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of objectively confirmed proximal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis in an upper limb or distal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, and death from venous thromboembolism and was assessed up to day 180. In a prespecified supportive analysis involving the same population, the same end point was assessed during the intervention period (first receipt of trial agent to last dose plus 2 days). The primary safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 1080 enrolled patients, 49 (4.5%) had thrombosis at screening and did not undergo randomization. Of the 841 patients who underwent randomization, the primary end point occurred in 25 of 420 patients (6.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 37 of 421 (8.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.09; P = 0.10) in the period up to day 180. In the prespecified intervention-period analysis, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (2.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 27 (6.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.80). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 patients (2.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (1.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer, treatment with rivaroxaban did not result in a significantly lower incidence of venous thromboembolism or death due to venous thromboembolism in the 180-day trial period. During the intervention period, rivaroxaban led to a substantially lower incidence of such events, with a low incidence of major bleeding. (Funded by Janssen and others; CASSINI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878.).

The importance of the design of observational studies in comparative effectiveness research: Lessons from the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for estimating the effectiveness of a treatment. However, in many instances they are impractical to conduct because of time limitations, cost restrictions, or ethical reasons. As a consequence, non-randomized observational studies have an important role in comparative effectiveness and safety research since they can address issues that would not be possible using conventional RCT methodology. Observational studies can be strategically designed to reduce the risk of potential sources of bias by emulating the design principles of an equivalent but ideal randomized trial - the target trial - that would answer the research question of interest. In this article, we review some of the necessary components of observational studies required for valid causal inference within the framework of target trial emulation, so as to avoid common methodological pitfalls of study design. We discuss the assumptions of consistency, time-zero specification, exchangeability and positivity. To illustrate these concepts in a context where existing knowledge is well-established through clinical trials, we evaluate and compare the treatment effects of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) against no VKA (No VKA) on the treatment of atrial fibrillation from two real-world observational studies, namely the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries. Results are compared with those of published RCTs.

Edoxaban for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparin is the standard treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The role of treatment with direct oral anticoagulant agents is unclear. METHODS: In this open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with cancer who had acute symptomatic or incidental venous thromboembolism to receive either low-molecular-weight heparin for at least 5 days followed by oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily (edoxaban group) or subcutaneous dalteparin at a dose of 200 IU per kilogram of body weight once daily for 1 month followed by dalteparin at a dose of 150 IU per kilogram once daily (dalteparin group). Treatment was given for at least 6 months and up to 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding during the 12 months after randomization, regardless of treatment duration. RESULTS: Of the 1050 patients who underwent randomization, 1046 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. A primary-outcome event occurred in 67 of the 522 patients (12.8%) in the edoxaban group as compared with 71 of the 524 patients (13.5%) in the dalteparin group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.36; P=0.006 for noninferiority; P=0.87 for superiority). Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 41 patients (7.9%) in the edoxaban group and in 59 patients (11.3%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk, -3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.0 to 0.2). Major bleeding occurred in 36 patients (6.9%) in the edoxaban group and in 21 patients (4.0%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.6). CONCLUSIONS: Oral edoxaban was noninferior to subcutaneous dalteparin with respect to the composite outcome of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding. The rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism was lower but the rate of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with dalteparin. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; Hokusai VTE Cancer ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02073682 .).

Early Risks of Death, Stroke/Systemic Embolism, and Major Bleeding in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is associated with increased risks of death, stroke/systemic embolism, and bleeding (incurred by antithrombotic therapy), which may occur early after diagnosis. METHODS: We assessed the risk of early events (death, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding) over 12 months and their relation to the time after diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in 52 014 patients prospectively enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation) between March 2010 and August 2016. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 2140 patients died (mortality rate, 4.3; 95% CI, 4.2-4.5 per 100 person-years), of whom 288 (13.5%) died in the first month (6.8; 95% CI, 6.1-7.6). Over 12 months, 657 patients had a stroke/systemic embolism (1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4) and 411 had a major bleeding (0.8; 95% CI, 0.8-0.9). During the first month, the rates (per 100 person-years) of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleed were 2.3 (95% CI, 1.9-2.8) and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.9), respectively. The elevated 1-month mortality rate was mostly attributable to cardiovascular mortality (3.5; 95% CI, 3.0-4.1), in particular, heart failure, sudden death, and acute coronary syndromes (1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.4], 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8], and 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8], respectively). Age, heart failure, prior stroke, history of cirrhosis, vascular disease, moderate-to-severe kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and living in North or Latin America were independent predictors of a higher risk of early death, whereas anticoagulation and living in Europe or Asia were independent predictors of a lower risk of early death. A predictive model developed for the 1-month risk of death had a C-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The increased hazard of early events, in particular, cardiovascular mortality, in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation points to the importance of comprehensive care for such patients and should alert clinicians to detect warning signs of possible early mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

Fundamental Research in Oncology and Thrombosis 2 (FRONTLINE 2): A Follow-Up Survey.

BACKGROUND: Fundamental Research in Oncology and Thrombosis (FRONTLINE) is a global survey of physicians' perceptions and practice in the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present survey, FRONTLINE 2, follows the original FRONTLINE survey (published in The Oncologist in 2003) and provides insights into how physicians perceive risk of VTE in cancer and approach its prophylaxis and treatment. RESULTS: Between November 2015 and February 2016, 5,233 respondents participated, representing cancer physicians and surgeons. Most believed that less than one in five patients with any cancer might be at risk of VTE, with a slightly higher risk in patients with brain, pancreatic, and lung tumors. The most frequently reported reasons for giving prophylaxis were prior history of VTE (74.6%), abnormal platelet count (62.0%), and obesity (59.5%). In surgical and medical cancer patients, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the most popular prophylactic measure, used by 74.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) were given in less than one fifth of cases. In surgical patients, prophylaxis was usually provided for 1 month postoperatively. Following a diagnosis of VTE, patients initially received treatment with LMWH and were maintained long term on OACs, primarily warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Most surgical and medical cancer patients underwent treatment of VTE for 3-6 months. CONCLUSION: Compared with the original FRONTLINE survey, FRONTLINE 2 reveals some differences in the management of VTE in patients with cancer. Newer anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban are being incorporated into the contemporary management of VTE in patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This globally conducted survey of more than 5,000 cancer clinicians revealed a number of insights into the perceived risk for venous thromboembolism as well as contemporary approaches to its prevention and treatment. Although guidelines have consistently recommended anticoagulant medications for prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis, clinicians report substantial variation in their practice.

Rivaroxaban or Aspirin for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Although many patients with venous thromboembolism require extended treatment, it is uncertain whether it is better to use full- or lower-intensity anticoagulation therapy or aspirin. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, we assigned 3396 patients with venous thromboembolism to receive either once-daily rivaroxaban (at doses of 20 mg or 10 mg) or 100 mg of aspirin. All the study patients had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and were in equipoise regarding the need for continued anticoagulation. Study drugs were administered for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent fatal or nonfatal venous thromboembolism, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 3365 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (median treatment duration, 351 days). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 17 of 1107 patients (1.5%) receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban and in 13 of 1127 patients (1.2%) receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, as compared with 50 of 1131 patients (4.4%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio for 20 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.59; hazard ratio for 10 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.47; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the group receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban, 0.4% in the group receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, and 0.3% in the aspirin group; the rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.7%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with venous thromboembolism in equipoise for continued anticoagulation, the risk of a recurrent event was significantly lower with rivaroxaban at either a treatment dose (20 mg) or a prophylactic dose (10 mg) than with aspirin, without a significant increase in bleeding rates. (Funded by Bayer Pharmaceuticals; EINSTEIN CHOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02064439 .).

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Aspirin.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.

Pantoprazole to Prevent Gastroduodenal Events in Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban and/or Aspirin in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.

Machine learning does not improve upon traditional regression in predicting outcomes in atrial fibrillation: an analysis of the ORBIT-AF and GARFIELD-AF registries.

AIMS: Prediction models for outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) are used to guide treatment. While regression models have been the analytic standard for prediction modelling, machine learning (ML) has been promoted as a potentially superior methodology. We compared the performance of ML and regression models in predicting outcomes in AF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) and Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD-AF) are population-based registries that include 74 792 AF patients. Models were generated from potential predictors using stepwise logistic regression (STEP), random forests (RF), gradient boosting (GB), and two neural networks (NNs). Discriminatory power was highest for death [STEP area under the curve (AUC) = 0.80 in ORBIT-AF, 0.75 in GARFIELD-AF] and lowest for stroke in all models (STEP AUC = 0.67 in ORBIT-AF, 0.66 in GARFIELD-AF). The discriminatory power of the ML models was similar or lower than the STEP models for most outcomes. The GB model had a higher AUC than STEP for death in GARFIELD-AF (0.76 vs. 0.75), but only nominally, and both performed similarly in ORBIT-AF. The multilayer NN had the lowest discriminatory power for all outcomes. The calibration of the STEP modelswere more aligned with the observed events for all outcomes. In the cross-registry models, the discriminatory power of the ML models was similar or lower than the STEP for most cases. CONCLUSION: When developed from two large, community-based AF registries, ML techniques did not improve prediction modelling of death, major bleeding, or stroke.

The association between patterns of atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation, and cardiovascular events.

AIMS: Guidelines do not recommend to take pattern of atrial fibrillation (AF) into account for the indication of anticoagulation (AC). We assessed AF pattern and the risk of cardiovascular events during 2-years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We categorized AF as paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent in 29 181 patients enrolled (2010-15) in the Global Anticoagulant Registry In the FIELD of AF (GARFIELD-AF). We used multivariable Cox regression to assess the risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and death across patterns of AF, and whether this changed with AC on outcomes. Atrial fibrillation pattern was paroxysmal in 14 344 (49.2%), persistent in 8064 (27.6%), and permanent 6773 (23.2%) patients. Median CHA2DS2-VASc, GARFIELD-AF, and HAS-BLED scores assessing the risk of stroke/SE and/or bleeding were similar across AF patterns, but the risk of death, as assessed by the GARFIELD-AF risk calculator, was higher in non-paroxysmal than in paroxysmal AF patterns. During 2-year follow-up, after adjustment, non-paroxysmal AF patterns were associated with significantly higher rates of all-cause death, stroke/SE, and new/worsening congestive heart failure (CHF) than paroxysmal AF in non-anticoagulated patients only. In anticoagulated patients, a significantly higher risk of death but not of stroke/SE and new/worsening CHF persisted in non-paroxysmal compared with paroxysmal AF patterns. CONCLUSION: In non-anticoagulated patients, non-paroxysmal AF patterns were associated with higher risks of stroke/SE, new/worsening HF and death than paroxysmal AF. In anticoagulated patients, the risk of stroke/SE and new/worsening HF was similar across all AF patterns. Thus AF pattern is no longer prognostic for stroke/SE when patients are treated with anticoagulants. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

Cancer associated thrombosis in everyday practice: perspectives from GARFIELD-VTE.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients and is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD)-VTE (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02155491) is a prospective, observational study of 10,684 patients with objectively diagnosed VTE from 415 sites in 28 countries. We compared baseline characteristics, VTE treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes (mortality, recurrent VTE and major bleeding) in 1075 patients with active cancer, 674 patients with a history of cancer, and 8935 patients without cancer. Patients with active cancer and history of cancer were older than cancer-free patients, with median ages of 64.8, 68.9, and 58.4 years, respectively. The most common sites of active cancer were lung (14.5%), colorectal (11.0%), breast (10.6%), and gynaecological (10.3%). Active cancer patients had a higher incidence of upper limb and vena cava thrombosis than cancer-free patients (9.0% vs 4.8% and 5.1% vs 1.4%, respectively), and were more likely to receive parenteral anticoagulation as monotherapy than cancer-free patients (57.8% vs 12.1%), and less likely to receive DOACs (14.2% vs 50.6%). Rates of death, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding were higher in active cancer patients than in cancer-free patients, with hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 14.2 (12.1-16.6), 1.6 (1.2-2.0) and 3.8 (2.9-5.0), respectively. VTE was the second most common cause of death in patients with active cancer or history of cancer. In patients with VTE, those with active cancer are at higher risk of death, recurrence, and major bleeding than those without cancer.

2019 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at a high risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding during anticoagulant therapy. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group aimed at establishing a global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer last updated its evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in 2016 with a free, web-based mobile phone application, which was subsequently endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a systematic review of the literature published up to December, 2018, are presented along with a Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation scale methods, with the support of the French National Cancer Institute. These guidelines were reviewed by an expanded international advisory committee and endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Results from head-to-head clinical trials that compared direct oral anticoagulant with low-molecular-weight heparin are also summarised, along with new evidence for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer.

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable peripheral or carotid artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications. METHODS: This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043). INTERPRETATION: Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding. FUNDING: Bayer AG.