Resistant Hypertension: Disease Burden and Emerging Treatment Options.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To define resistant hypertension (RHT), review its pathophysiology and disease burden, identify barriers to effective hypertension management, and to highlight emerging treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: RHT is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg despite concurrent prescription of ≥ 3 or ≥ 4 antihypertensive drugs in different classes or controlled BP despite prescription of ≥ to 4 drugs, at maximally tolerated doses, including a diuretic. BP is regulated by a complex interplay between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system, the endothelin system, natriuretic peptides, the arterial vasculature, and the immune system; disruption of any of these can increase BP. RHT is disproportionately manifest in African Americans, older patients, and those with diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Amongst drug-treated hypertensives, only one-quarter have been treated intensively enough (prescribed > 2 drugs) to be considered for this diagnosis. New treatment strategies aimed at novel therapeutic targets include inhibition of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2, aminopeptidase A, aldosterone synthesis, phosphodiesterase 5, xanthine oxidase, and dopamine beta-hydroxylase, as well as soluble guanylate cyclase stimulation, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism, and dual endothelin receptor antagonism. The burden of RHT remains high. Better use of currently approved therapies and integrating emerging therapies are welcome additions to the therapeutic armamentarium for addressing needs in high-risk aTRH patients.

Updated Renal Dosage Recommendations for Rivaroxaban in Patients Experiencing or at Risk of Thromboembolic Disease.

Patients with chronic kidney disease are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban has been shown to provide similar efficacy and a lower risk of bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists for the treatment and prevention of VTE. Rivaroxaban has been studied in patients with varying degrees of renal impairment, and this review summarizes current knowledge supporting its use in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl] of 15 to < 30 mL/min) for the prevention, treatment, or prophylaxis of VTE. Clinical pharmacology studies have demonstrated an increase in rivaroxaban systemic exposure, factor Xa inhibition, and prothrombin time with decreasing renal function. These changes reach a plateau with comparable increases in exposure among individuals with moderate or severe renal impairment and end-stage renal disease. The clinical development program for the treatment and prevention of VTE as well as prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) following orthopedic surgery excluded patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min; however, a limited number of patients with severe renal impairment were enrolled. Efficacy outcomes in these patients with severe renal impairment were not meaningfully different from those of patients with higher levels of renal function. There was also no increase in the incidence of major bleeding with rivaroxaban in patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min. Taken together, these pharmacological and clinical data suggest that in patients with severe renal impairment, the approved dosages of rivaroxaban can be used in the treatment and prevention of VTE and for prophylaxis of DVT after hip or knee replacement surgery.

Effectiveness, safety, and healthcare costs associated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin among venous thromboembolism patients with obesity: a real-world study in the United States.

Prior observational studies suggest rivaroxaban is safe and effective among patients with morbid obesity who suffered a venous thromboembolism (VTE) event, but existing data are more limited in the broader population of VTE patients with obesity. This study assessed VTE recurrence, major bleeding, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare costs among VTE patients with obesity who received rivaroxaban versus warfarin. VTE patients with obesity who initiated rivaroxaban or warfarin after a first VTE (index date) were identified from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database (01/02/2011-09/30/2019). The follow-up period spanned from the index date until health plan disenrollment, end of data availability, cancer diagnosis/treatment, end of the 12 month post-index period, or (for the analysis of major bleeding) anticoagulant discontinuation or switch. Patient characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The weighted rivaroxaban (N = 8666) and warfarin cohorts (N = 5946) were well balanced (mean age = 51 years, females = 52%). Over a 9.6 months mean observation period, rivaroxaban users had a significantly lower risk of VTE recurrence [7.0% vs. 8.2%, HR(95% CI) = 0.85(0.75;0.97)] and a similar risk of major bleeding [4.1% vs. 3.6%, HR(95% CI) = 1.11(0.89;1.37)] relative to warfarin users at 12 months. Relative to warfarin users, rivaroxaban users had significantly fewer all-cause outpatient visits [RR(95% CI) = 0.71(0.70;0.74)]. The higher pharmacy costs incurred by rivaroxaban recipients (cost difference = $1252) were offset by lower medical costs (cost difference = - $2515, all p < 0.05) compared with warfarin recipients. Our findings suggest that rivaroxaban is safe and effective versus warfarin, and associated with lower medical costs among VTE patients with obesity.

Biomarker signatures in cancer patients with and without venous thromboembolism events: a substudy of CASSINI.

Cancer is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In the CASSINI study, ambulatory cancer patients with a Khorana risk score ≥2 had a reduced risk of VTE while receiving rivaroxaban. This analysis used blood samples from CASSINI to compare biomarker levels between patients with and without VTE. VTE occurred in 62 patients during the 6 months of CASSINI (cases), and they were matched by age, sex, cancer type, tumor stage, and Khorana score to 62 controls. Baseline blood samples were analyzed for 280 biomarkers, and biomarker distribution was compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test between groups defined by VTE occurrence and vital status. Sparse Bayesian regression modeling was used to select a joint panel of potential VTE biomarkers. Biomarkers with the largest differences in baseline distribution among cancer patients with and without VTE included decreases in stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1), thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), and monocyte chemotactic protein 4 and increases in growth hormone (GH) and interleukin-1 receptor type 1 (IL-1R1). Between survivors and those who died, significantly different biomarkers included ST2, IL-8, and C-reactive protein. Regression analyses also identified decreases in SDF-1 and TSH. Pathway analysis indicated enrichment of cytokine and chemokine activity with IL-1R1, SDF-1, and GH, which are the strongest predictors of VTE or death. Our analyses highlight the interactions between hemostatic and inflammatory processes and identify candidate biomarkers of cancer-associated VTE. Prospective studies will determine clinical relevance of these biomarkers. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02555878.

Economic burden of rivaroxaban and warfarin among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with obesity and polypharmacy.

Aim: Evaluate healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with rivaroxaban and warfarin among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with obesity and polypharmacy. Materials & methods: IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 2010-September 2019) data were used to identify NVAF patients with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and polypharmacy (≥5 medications) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin. Weighted rate ratios and cost differences were evaluated post-treatment initiation. Results: Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly lower rates of HRU, including hospitalization (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.77, 0.92]). Medical costs were reduced in rivaroxaban users (difference [95% CI]: -US$6868 [-US$10,628, -US$2954]), resulting in significantly lower total healthcare costs compared with warfarin users (difference [95% CI]: -US$4433 [-US$8136, -US$582]). Conclusion: Rivaroxaban was associated with lower HRU and costs compared with warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy in commercially insured US patients.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Warfarin Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) Patients with Obesity and Polypharmacy in the United States (US).

INTRODUCTION: Current evidence indicates that rivaroxaban may be a safe and effective alternative to warfarin among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and obesity. However, evidence regarding the impact of polypharmacy is limited in this population. The present study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy in the US. METHODS: De-identified health insurance claims data from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus data (01/2010-09/2019) were used to identify NVAF patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for imbalances between groups. Study outcomes were evaluated up to 36 months post-treatment initiation and included the composite of stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding. Subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by polypharmacy category (5-9 or ≥ 10 medications). Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression models with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 7000 and 3920 NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy were initiated on rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively. At 36 months of follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with a 29% lower risk of stroke/SE relative to warfarin (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57, 0.90). Major bleeding risk was not significantly different among rivaroxaban- compared to warfarin-treated patients (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70, 1.03). Subgroup analyses yielded results that were largely consistent with the overall polypharmacy analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that rivaroxaban is an effective and safe treatment option among NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy in a commercially-insured US population.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with obesity in a US population.

AIM: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and obesity newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin in the US. METHODS: This retrospective study used IQVIA PharMetrics Plus data (01/2010-09/2019) to evaluate patients (≥18 years) with NVAF and obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin (on or after 01/2013). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding between cohorts. HRU and costs were assessed post-treatment initiation. Weighted cohorts were compared using Poisson regression models and cost differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p values generated using non-parametric bootstrap procedures. RESULTS: After IPTW, 10,555 and 5,080 patients were initiated on rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively (mean age: 59 years). At 12 months follow-up, the rivaroxaban cohort had lower all-cause HRU, including fewer hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.87), emergency room visits (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97), and outpatient visits (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.77; all p < .05). Medical costs were also reduced in the rivaroxaban cohort (mean difference: -$6,759, 95% CI: -$9,814, -$3,311) due to reduced hospitalization costs (mean difference: -$5,967, 95% CI: -$8,721, -$3,327), resulting in lower total all-cause healthcare costs compared to the warfarin cohort (mean difference: -$4,579, 95% CI: -$7,609, -$1,052; all p < .05). The rivaroxaban cohort also had lower NVAF-related HRU and medical costs driven by lower hospitalization at 12 months post-treatment initiation. HRU and cost reductions associated with rivaroxaban persisted up to 36 months of follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Claims data may have contained inaccuracies and obesity was classified based on ICD diagnosis codes given that patient BMI values were not available. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was associated with reduced HRU and costs compared to warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity in a real-world US setting.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with obesity in a US population.

OBJECTIVES: Current evidence indicates that the pharmacokinetic profile of rivaroxaban is not significantly impacted by body weight. However, real-world data are needed to better assess the potential clinical benefits and risks associated with rivaroxaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with obesity. Thus, our objectives were to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity in the US nationally representative commercially-insured population. METHODS: Health insurance claims data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (January 2010-September 2019) were used to identify NVAF patients with obesity (based on diagnosis codes) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for imbalances between groups. Study outcomes of interest were evaluated up to 36 months post-treatment initiation and included the composite of stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression models with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 10,555 patients were initiated on rivaroxaban and 5080 patients on warfarin. Following IPTW, the risk of stroke/SE was 26% lower among patients prescribed rivaroxaban relative to warfarin (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.91, p = .004) at 36 months. Rivaroxaban-initiated patients had a risk of major bleeding similar to that of warfarin-initiated patients (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.02, p = .085). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that rivaroxaban is an effective and safe treatment option among NVAF patients with obesity in a commercially-insured US population.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese patients with acute venous thromboembolism: analysis of electronic health record data.

There is limited data evaluating clinical outcomes of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese VTE patients. We performed a cohort analysis using Optum® De-Identified Electronic Health Record data from 11/1/2012 to 9/30/2018. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 admitted to the hospital, emergency department or observation unit for VTE, prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin as their first oral anticoagulant (OAC) within 7-days and had ≥12-months of EHR activity prior were included. We excluded patients with OAC use at baseline or cancer. Patients were 1:1 matched (standard differences<0.10). Primary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding at 3-, 6- and 12-months using an intent-to-treat approach. Subanalyses of BMI 30.0-34.9, 35.0-39.9 and ≥ 40 kg/m2 were performed. Risk was compared using Cox regression and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We identified 6755 rivaroxaban and 6755 warfarin users with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and incident VTE. At 3-, 6- and 12-months, rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced hazard of recurrent VTE compared to warfarin (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.51-0.72; HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.55-0.77; HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.54-0.74) with no difference in major bleeding (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.68-1.44; HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.64-1.26; HR 1.00, 95%CI 0.73-1.36). No statistical difference was found across BMI categories for either recurrent VTE (p-interaction≥0.43) or major bleeding (p-interaction ≥ 0.58) at any time point. In obese VTE patients, prescription of rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly reduced risk of recurrent VTE versus warfarin, without impacting major bleeding. Our findings remained consistent across BMI classes.

Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin for Management of Obese African Americans With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation or Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

African Americans (AAs) and obese individuals have increased thrombotic risk. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese, AAs with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). Optum® De-Identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) data was used to perform separate propensity-score matched analyses of adult, oral anticoagulant (OAC)-naïve AAs with NVAF or acute VTE, respectively; who had a body mass index≥30kg/m2 and ≥12-months EHR activity with ≥1-encounter before OAC initiation. Cox regression was performed and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the NVAF analysis, 1,969 rivaroxaban- and 1,969 warfarin-users were matched. Rivaroxaban was not associated with a difference in stroke/systemic embolism versus warfarin (HR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.60-1.28), but less major bleeding (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.94) was observed. Among 683 rivaroxaban-users with VTE, 1:1 matched to warfarin-users, rivaroxaban did not alter recurrent VTE (HR = 1.36, 95%CI = 0.79-2.34) or major bleeding (HR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.37-1.71) risk versus warfarin at 6-months (similar findings observed at 3- and 12-months). Rivaroxaban appeared to be associated with similar thrombotic, and similar or lower major bleeding risk versus warfarin in these obese, AA cohorts.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients: analysis of electronic health record data.

Background: Although rivaroxaban has demonstrated consistent drug levels in normal weight and obese patients, sufficient confirmation of equal clinical effectiveness and safety is currently lacking.Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) in obese nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients.Methods: Using Optum de-identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) data from November 2011 to September 2018,we evaluated NVAF patients with a body mass index (BMI)≥30 kg/m2 newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin (index date), with ≥12-months of EHR activity and ≥1 encounter before the index date. We excluded patients with valvular disease or evidence of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use at baseline. Patients who were prescribed rivaroxaban were 1:1 propensity-score matched to patients who were prescribed warfarin (standard differences <0.10 achieved for all covariates). Outcomes included SSE and major bleeding using an intent-to-treat approach. Subanalyses stratified by BMI (30.0-34.9, 35.0-39.9 and ≥40 kg/m2) were performed. Cox regression was performed and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: We included 35,613 rivaroxaban and 35,613 warfarin users with NVAF. Patients were followed for a median of 2.6 years (25%-75% range = 1.2-4.1). Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of SSE (HR = 0.83, 95%CI = 0.73-0.94) and major bleeding (HR = 0.82, 95%CI = 0.75-0.89) compared to warfarin. Subanalysis did not show a statistically significant interaction across BMI categories for SSE (p-interaction = .58) or major bleeding (p-interaction = .44) outcomes.Conclusions: Among obese NVAF patients, prescription of rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of SSE and major bleeding compared to warfarin, which remained consistent across BMI classes.

A Cross-Study Analysis Evaluating the Effects of Food on the Pharmacokinetics of Rivaroxaban in Clinical Studies.

US prescribing guidelines recommend that 15- and 20-mg doses of rivaroxaban be administered with food for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and for reduction in the risk of recurrence of DVT and PE. In addition, the US prescribing guidelines recommend these doses be administered with an evening meal to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of this model-based cross-study comparison was to examine the impact of food, with regard to both meal timing and content, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of rivaroxaban, using data collected during its clinical development. Results of this analysis showed that a PK model built from pooled data in the AF population (for whom rivaroxaban was administered with an evening meal) and in the DVT population (for whom rivaroxaban was administered with a morning meal) can describe both data sets well. Furthermore, the PK model built from data in the AF population alone can adequately predict the PK profile of the DVT population and vice versa. This cross-study analysis also confirmed the findings from previous clinical pharmacology studies, which showed that meal content does not have a clinically relevant impact on the PK of rivaroxaban at 20 mg. Therefore, although the administration of rivaroxaban with food is necessary for maintaining high bioavailability, neither meal timing nor meal content appears to affect the PK of rivaroxaban.

Influences of Obesity and Bariatric Surgery on the Clinical and Pharmacologic Profile of Rivaroxaban.

The health implications of obesity are myriad and multifaceted. Physiologic changes associated with obesity can affect the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of administered drugs, thereby altering their pharmacologic profiles. In 2016, the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis published recommendations about the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in obese patients. This guidance provides uniform recommendations for all DOACs, yet data suggest that individual agents may be affected to different degrees by obesity. Moreover, there are no recommendations currently available to guide DOAC use in bariatric surgery patients, in whom anatomic and physiologic changes to the digestive system can influence drug pharmacokinetics. Our review of the available literature indicates that the clinical profile of the DOAC rivaroxaban is not affected by high weight or bariatric surgery; hence, it does not appear that rivaroxaban dosing needs to be altered in these patient populations.

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Safety of Single-Dose Rivaroxaban in Chronic Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to characterize the single-dose pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of rivaroxaban 15 mg administered before and after dialysis in subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and to compare this profile in subjects with ESRD to that in healthy control subjects (creatinine clearance ≥80 ml/min). METHODS: This was an open-label, single-dose, single-center, parallel-group study of rivaroxaban in ESRD subjects who had been clinically stable on maintenance hemodialysis for ≥3 months. In 8 subjects with ESRD, a 15-mg dose of rivaroxaban was administered 2 ± 0.5 h before a hemodialysis session and repeated 7-14 days later at 3 h after a 4-h hemodialysis session. Eight healthy control subjects, matched for age, sex, and body mass index, received one 15-mg rivaroxaban dose. RESULTS: Compared to healthy subjects, area under the rivaroxaban plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) increased by 56% following post-dialysis administration. Assuming similar bioavailability between groups, this reflects an approximate 35% decrease in overall drug clearance in ESRD subjects. Pre-dialysis dosing resulted in only 5% lowering of AUC versus post-dialysis dosing, confirming the minimal impact of dialysis on the PK of rivaroxaban. PD effects, as assessed by change in prothrombin time, percent factor Xa inhibition, and anti-Xa activity, were generally concordant with observed changes in plasma PK. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in PK and PD parameters in chronic dialysis patients were generally comparable to changes observed previously in patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment who were not undergoing dialysis, and support use of a 15-mg dose in this patient population.

Switching from rivaroxaban to warfarin: an open label pharmacodynamic study in healthy subjects.

AIMS: The primary objective was to explore the pharmacodynamic changes during transition from rivaroxaban to warfarin in healthy subjects. Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics were assessed as secondary objectives. METHODS: An open label, non-randomized, sequential two period study. In treatment period 1 (TP1), subjects received rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (5 days), followed by co-administration with a warfarin loading dose regimen of 5 or 10 mg (for the 10 mg regimen, the dose could be uptitrated to attain target international normalized ratio [INR] ≥2.0) once daily (2-4 days). When trough INR values ≥2.0 were attained, rivaroxaban was discontinued and warfarin treatment continued as monotherapy (INR 2.0-3.0). During treatment period 2, subjects received the same warfarin regimen as in TP1, but without rivaroxaban. RESULTS: During co-administration, maximum INR and prothrombin time (PT) values were higher than with rivaroxaban or warfarin monotherapy. The mean maximum effect (Emax ) for INR after co-administration was 2.79-4.15 (mean PT Emax 41.0-62.7 s), compared with 1.41-1.74 (mean PT Emax 20.1-25.2 s) for warfarin alone. However, rivaroxaban had the smallest effect on INR at trough rivaroxaban concentrations. Neither rivaroxaban nor warfarin significantly affected maximum plasma concentrations of the other drug. CONCLUSIONS: The combined pharmacodynamic effects during co-administration of rivaroxaban and warfarin were greater than additive, but the pharmacokinetics of both drugs were unaffected. Co-administration was well tolerated. When transitioning from rivaroxaban to warfarin, INR monitoring during co-administration should be performed at the trough rivaroxaban concentration to minimize the effect of rivaroxaban on INR.

Effect of multiple doses of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of a single dose of rivaroxaban.

Many patients with acute coronary syndrome receive chronic dual antiplatelet therapy (acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel) for secondary event prophylaxis, and new oral anticoagulants are being investigated as adjunctive therapy in this indication. Gastrointestinal side effects such as bleeding are commonly associated with antiplatelet use; accordingly, many patients receive proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to mitigate this. PPIs can reduce the antiplatelet activity of clopidogrel through cytochrome P450 2C19 inhibition, and pantoprazole reduces the bioavailability of dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor that acts via cytochrome P450 2C19-independent mechanisms. These observations support the investigation of potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between PPIs and anticoagulants. We evaluated the influence of administering once-daily omeprazole 40 mg for 5 days on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a single 20-mg dose of the oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, in a randomized, open-label, 2-way, crossover, drug-drug interaction study in healthy subjects. No clinically meaningful interactions were observed; geometric mean ratios were 101%, 101%, and 93.5% for rivaroxaban area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast), or until infinity (AUC∞), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), respectively. Prothrombin time increased similarly in both treatment groups, with maximal values observed approximately 4 hours post rivaroxaban administration. A single 20-mg rivaroxaban dose appears well tolerated when administered alone or after 5 days of once-daily omeprazole 40 mg administration.

Bioequivalence and safety of a novel fentanyl transdermal matrix system compared with a transdermal reservoir system.

OBJECTIVES: Fentanyl is a potent synthetic opioid used for the management of chronic pain. A newer transdermal matrix system was developed and compared with a reservoir system used in the United States. SETTING: An open-label, single-center, randomized, two-period crossover study was conducted to evaluate the bioequivalence of the transdermal matrix system to the transdermal reservoir system. Seventy-four subjects completed treatment with both the reservoir system (100 microg/h) and the matrix system (100 microg/h), each applied for 72 hours. After application of the first system, subjects completed a 9-day washout and then crossed over to receive the other system for another 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Blood samples for the determination of serum fentanyl concentrations were taken in each treatment period for up to 120 hours following application. RESULTS: The ratios of geometric means for maximum fentanyl concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUClast, and AUCinfinity) were 106 percent, 110 percent, and 110 percent, respectively. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the geometric means were contained within the bioequivalence criteria of 80-125 percent. The matrix system adhered well to skin. Systemic and topical safety profiles were comparable between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The transdermal fentanyl matrix system adhered well, was well tolerated, and produced systemic exposures of fentanyl that were bioequivalent to the reservoir system.

A randomized study of the effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of once-daily extended-release hydromorphone in healthy volunteers.

This randomized, open-label, crossover study investigated the influence of food on the pharmacokinetics of extended-release hydromorphone in 30 healthy volunteers. Participants received extended-release hydromorphone 16 mg in the fasted state and immediately after a high-fat breakfast. In addition, the pharmacokinetics of a 16-mg dose of extended-release hydromorphone and a 16-mg daily dose (4 mg qid) of immediate-release hydromorphone in the fasted state were compared. Treatments were separated by washout periods of 7 to 14 days. Naltrexone was given throughout each treatment period to block the opioid effects of hydromorphone. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means for maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) for extended-release hydromorphone in the fed and fasted states were within the bioequivalence criteria range of 80% to 125%. In the fasted state, the 90% CIs of the ratios of AUC geometric means for extended-release hydromorphone and immediate-release hydromorphone were also within the bioequivalence range. Both hydromorphone treatments were well tolerated. This study shows that the bioavailability of extended-release hydromorphone is not affected by food and that the bioavailability of extended-release hydromorphone under fasting conditions is comparable with that of the immediate-release formulation when administered at the same total daily dose.