Assessment of Days Alive Out of Hospital as a Possible End Point in Trials of Stroke Prevention for Atrial Fibrillation: A ROCKET AF Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Days alive out of hospital (DAOH) is an objective and patient-centered net benefit end point. There are no assessments of DAOH in clinical trials of interventions for atrial fibrillation (AF), and it is not known whether this end point is of clinical utility in these populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) was an international double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial that compared rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk for stroke. We assessed DAOH using investigator-reported event data for up to 12 months after randomization in ROCKET AF. We assessed DAOH overall, by treatment group, and by subgroup, including age, sex, and comorbidities, using Poisson regression. The mean±SD number of days dead was 7.3±41.2, days hospitalized was 1.2±7.2, and mean DAOH was 350.7±56.2, with notable left skew. Patients with comorbidities had fewer DAOH overall. There were no differences in DAOH by treatment arm, with mean DAOH of 350.6±56.5 for those randomized to rivaroxaban and 350.7±55.8 for those randomized to warfarin (P=0.86). A sensitivity analysis found no difference in DAOH not disabled with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (DAOH not disabled, 349.2±59.5 days and 349.1 days±59.3 days, respectively, P=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: DAOH did not identify a treatment difference between patients randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin. This may be driven in part by the low overall event rates in atrial fibrillation anticoagulation trials, which leads to substantial left skew in measures of DAOH.

Termination Based on Event Accrual in Per Protocol Versus Intention to Treat in the ROCKET AF Trial.

Background In event-driven clinical trials, study termination is based on accrual of a target number of primary efficacy events. For noninferiority trials in which superiority is conditionally examined, the ideal cohort in which to track event accrual is unclear. We used data from the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial to determine the effect of primary efficacy-event tracking in the per-protocol cohort during the on-treatment period versus the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort during the ITT period. Methods and Results ROCKET AF was terminated after accruing 429 primary efficacy events (stroke or systemic embolism) in the per-protocol cohort during the on-treatment period for noninferiority. We identified the date on which 429 events occurred in the ITT cohort during the ITT period. We performed noninferiority and superiority analyses based on hypothetical study termination on this date. ROCKET AF would have terminated 226 days earlier if events were tracked during the ITT period. Similar to the main trial findings, rivaroxaban would have met noninferiority versus warfarin for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96; P<0.001). In contrast to the main trial findings, rivaroxaban would have met superiority for the primary efficacy end point (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P=0.038). In both termination scenarios, rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and similar risk of other safety end points. Conclusions Clinical trial termination based on event accrual in the ITT cohort versus the per-protocol cohort may have important implications on trial results depending on rates of study drug discontinuation and event rates off treatment.

Pharmacotherapy for diabetes and stroke risk: Results from ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: Insulin use may be a better predictor of stroke risk and morbidity and mortality than diabetes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: Determine if the increased risk of stroke observed in patients with AF and diabetes is restricted to those treated with insulin. METHODS: We analyzed the association between diabetes and treatment and the occurrence of stroke/systemic embolism, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, vascular death, composite outcomes, and bleeding risk in the ROCKET AF trial. RESULTS: In a cohort of 14,264 patients, there were 40.3% (n = 5746) with diabetes, 5.9% (n = 842) on insulin, 18.9% (n = 2697) on oral medications, and 11.9% (n = 1703) diet-controlled. Compared to those without diabetes, patients with non-insulin-treated diabetes had increased risks of stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.68), MI (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17-2.30), all-cause death (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.46), vascular death (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11-1.60), and composite outcomes (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.18-1.157). Patients with insulin-treated diabetes had a significantly higher risk of MI (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.33-4.01) and composite outcomes (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.19-2.08) compared to those without diabetes. There were no significant differences between insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated diabetes for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Among patients with AF and diabetes, there were no significant differences in outcomes in insulin-treated diabetes compared to non-insulin-treated diabetes.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation enrolled in Latin America: Insights from ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: ROCKET AF demonstrated the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We examined baseline characteristics and outcomes in patients enrolled in Latin America compared with the rest of the world (ROW). METHODS: ROCKET AF enrolled 14,264 patients from 45 countries. Of these, 1,878 (13.2%) were from 7 Latin American countries. The clinical characteristics and outcomes (adjusted by baseline characteristics) of these patients were compared with 12,293 patients from the ROW. Treatment outcomes of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin were also stratified by region. RESULTS: The annual rate of stroke/SE was similar in those from Latin American and ROW (P= .63), but all-cause and vascular death were significantly higher than in ROW (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.20-1.64; HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14-1.68; P< .001). Rates of major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding tended to be lower in Latin America (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-1.0; P= .05). Rates of stroke and/or SE were similar with rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients from Latin America and ROW (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.54-1.29 vs HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.07; interaction P= .77). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF in Latin America had similar rates of stroke and/or SE, higher rates of vascular death, and lower rates of bleeding compared with patients in the ROW. The effect of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Latin America was similar to the ROW. Further studies analyzing patient- and country-specific determinants of these regional differences in Latin America are warranted.

Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Study Drug Discontinuation: Post-Hoc Analysis of Findings from ROCKET AF.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction endpoints are increasingly important in clinical trials and may be associated with treatment adherence. In this post hoc substudy from ROCKET AF, we examined whether patient-reported satisfaction was associated with study drug discontinuation. METHODS: ROCKET AF (n = 14,264) compared rivaroxaban with warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. We analyzed treatment satisfaction scores: the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM II). We compared satisfaction with study drug between the two treatment arms, and examined the association between satisfaction and patient-driven study drug discontinuation (stopping study drug due to withdrawal of consent, noncompliance, or loss to follow-up). RESULTS: A total of 1577 (11%) patients participated in the Patient Satisfaction substudy; 1181 (8.3%) completed both the ACTS and TSQM II 4 weeks after starting study drug. Patients receiving rivaroxaban did not experience significant differences in satisfaction compared with those receiving warfarin. During a median follow-up of 1.6 years, 448 premature study drug discontinuations occurred (213 rivaroxaban group; 235 warfarin group), of which 116 (26%) were patient-driven (52 [24%] rivaroxaban group; 64 [27%] warfarin group). No significant differences were observed between satisfaction level and rates of patient-driven study drug discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Study drug satisfaction did not predict rate of study drug discontinuation. No significant difference was observed between satisfaction with warfarin and rivaroxaban, as expected given the double-blind trial design. Although these results are negative, the importance of PRO data will only increase, and these analyses may inform future studies that explore the relationship between drug-satisfaction PROs, adherence, and clinical outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00403767. FUNDING: The ROCKET AF trial was funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer.

Association of Rivaroxaban With Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Heart Failure, Coronary Disease, and Sinus Rhythm: A Post Hoc Analysis of the COMMANDER HF Trial.

Importance: Whether anticoagulation benefits patients with heart failure (HF) in sinus rhythm is uncertain. The COMMANDER HF randomized clinical trial evaluated the effects of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to antiplatelet therapy in patients with recent worsening of chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease (CAD), and sinus rhythm. Although the primary end point of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke did not differ between rivaroxaban and placebo, there were numerical advantages favoring rivaroxaban for myocardial infarction and stroke. Objective: To examine whether low-dose rivaroxaban was associated with reduced thromboembolic events in patients enrolled in the COMMANDER HF trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc analysis of the COMMANDER HF multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with CAD and worsening HF. The trial randomized 5022 patients postdischarge from a hospital or outpatient clinic after treatment for worsening HF between September 2013 and October 2017. Patients were required to be receiving standard care for HF and CAD and were excluded for a medical condition requiring anticoagulation or a bleeding history. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Analysis was conducted from June 2018 and January 2019. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 2.5 mg of rivaroxaban given orally twice daily or placebo in addition to their standard therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For this post hoc analysis, a thromboembolic composite was defined as either (1) myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, sudden/unwitnessed death, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, or symptomatic deep venous thrombosis or (2) all of the previous components except sudden/unwitnessed deaths because not all of these are caused by thromboembolic events. Results: Of 5022 patients, 3872 (77.1%) were men, and the overall mean (SD) age was 66.4 (10.2) years. Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 19.6 (11.7-30.8) months, fewer patients assigned to rivaroxaban compared with placebo had a thromboembolic event including sudden/unwitnessed deaths: 328 (13.1%) vs 390 (15.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96; P = .01). When sudden/unwitnessed deaths were excluded, the results analyzing thromboembolic events were similar: 153 (6.1%) vs 190 patients (7.6%) with an event (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, thromboembolic events occurred frequently in patients with HF, CAD, and sinus rhythm. Rivaroxaban may reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in this population, but these events are not the major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with recent worsening of HF for which rivaroxaban had no effect. While consistent with other studies, these results require confirmation in prospective randomized clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01877915.

Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a history of cancer: observations from ROCKET AF.

AIMS: The management of anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and cancer is challenging due to increased thrombotic and bleeding risks. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in patients with AF and a history of cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROCKET AF randomized 14 264 patients with AF to rivaroxaban or warfarin with a median follow-up of 1.9 years. Cox regression models were used to assess the association between cancer history and clinical outcomes, and the relative treatment effect of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in these patients. A total of 640 patients enrolled in ROCKET AF had a history of cancer, with the most common types being prostate (28.6%), colorectal (16.1%), and breast (14.7%) cancer. Patients with a history of cancer were older, more frequently male, more likely to have prior vitamin K antagonist (VKA) use and had higher rates of overall bleeding [hazard ratio (HR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.47; P < 0.0001] and non-cardiovascular death (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.04-2.07; P = 0.031) compared with those with no cancer history. There were no significant associations between cancer history and stroke, venous thromboembolism, or myocardial infarction. The relative efficacy of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for prevention of stroke/systemic embolism was similar in those with and without a history of cancer (interaction P-value = 0.21). CONCLUSION: In ROCKET AF, a history of cancer was associated with a higher risk of bleeding and non-cardiovascular death, but not ischaemic events. The relative efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin were not significantly different in patients with and without a history of cancer. The results of this study are exploratory and should be taken in context of the study population, which may not be generalizable to those with advanced malignancy. Further investigation is needed to understand optimal anticoagulation strategies in patients with AF and cancer.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00403767.

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

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

Rivaroxaban in Patients with Heart Failure, Sinus Rhythm, and Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is associated with activation of thrombin-related pathways, which predicts a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that treatment with rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, could reduce thrombin generation and improve outcomes for patients with worsening chronic heart failure and underlying coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, 5022 patients who had chronic heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, coronary artery disease, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides and who did not have atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo in addition to standard care after treatment for an episode of worsening heart failure. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The principal safety outcome was fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space with a potential for causing permanent disability. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 21.1 months, the primary end point occurred in 626 (25.0%) of 2507 patients assigned to rivaroxaban and in 658 (26.2%) of 2515 patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.05; P=0.27). No significant difference in all-cause mortality was noted between the rivaroxaban group and the placebo group (21.8% and 22.1%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.10). The principal safety outcome occurred in 18 patients who took rivaroxaban and in 23 who took placebo (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.49; P=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily was not associated with a significantly lower rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than placebo among patients with worsening chronic heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, and no atrial fibrillation. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; COMMANDER HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01877915 .).

Impact of polyvascular disease on patients with atrial fibrillation: Insights from ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of polyvascular disease in patients enrolled in ROCKET AF. METHODS: Cox regression models were used to assess clinical outcomes and treatment effects of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary, peripheral, or carotid artery disease, or any combination of the 3. RESULTS: A total of 655 (4.6%) patients had polyvascular disease (≥2 disease locations), and 3,391 (23.8%) had single-arterial bed disease. Patients with polyvascular disease had similar rates of stroke/systemic embolism but higher rates of cardiovascular and bleeding events when compared with those without vascular disease. Use of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was associated with higher rates of stroke in patients with polyvascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 2.41, 95% CI 1.05-5.54); however, this was not seen in patients with single-bed (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.64-1.28) or no vascular disease (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69-1.04; interaction P = .058). There was a significant interaction for major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding in patients with polyvascular (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.91-1.65) and single-bed vascular disease (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13-1.49) treated with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin when compared with those without vascular disease (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.04; interaction P = .0006). Additional antiplatelet therapy in this population did not improve stroke or cardiovascular outcomes. CONCLUSION: The use of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was associated with a higher risk of stroke and bleeding in patients with polyvascular disease enrolled in ROCKET AF. Further studies are needed to understand the optimal management of this high-risk population.

Net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in atrial fibrillation: Results from ROCKET AF.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the net clinical benefit (NCB) of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 14,236 patients included in ROCKET AF who received at least one dose of study drug. We analyzed NCB using four different methods: (1) composite of death, stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding; (2) method 1 with fatal or critical organ bleeding substituted for major bleeding; (3) difference between the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism minus 1.5 times the difference between the rate of intracranial hemorrhage; and (4) weighted sum of differences between rates of death, ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, and major bleeding. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism (rate difference per 10,000 patient-years [RD]=-86.8 [95% CI -143.6 to -30.0]) and fatal or critical organ bleeding (-41.3 [-68 to -14.7]). However, rivaroxaban was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding other than fatal or critical organ bleeding (55.9 [14.7 to 97.2]). Method 1 showed no difference between treatments (-35.5 [-108.4 to 37.3]). Methods 2-4 favored treatment with rivaroxaban (2: -96.8 [-157.0 to -36.8]; 3: -65.2 [-112.3 to -17.8]; 4: -54.8 [-96.0 to -10.2]). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was associated with favorable NCB compared with warfarin. The NCB was attributable to lower rates of ischemic events and fatal or critical organ bleeding.

Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with carotid artery disease and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Insights from the ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases risk of stroke 5-fold. Carotid artery disease (CD) also augments the risk of stroke, yet there are limited data about the interplay of these 2 diseases and clinical outcomes in patients with comorbid AF and CD. HYPOTHESIS: Among patients with both AF and CD, use of rivaroxaban when compared with warfarin is associated with a lower risk of stroke. METHODS: This post hoc analysis from ROCKET AF aimed to determine absolute rates of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and bleeding, and the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with AF and CD (defined as history of carotid occlusive disease or carotid revascularization [endarterectomy and/or stenting]). RESULTS: A total of 593 (4.2%) patients had CD at enrollment. Patients with and without CD had similar rates of stroke or SE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-1.48, P = 0.96), and there was no difference in major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.88-1.24, P = 0.62). The efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke/SE was not statistically significant in patients with vs those without CD (interaction P = 0.25). The safety of rivaroxaban vs warfarin for major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was similar in patients with and without CD (interaction P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CD in ROCKET AF had similar risk of stroke/SE compared with patients without CD. Additionally, there was no interaction between CD and the treatment effect of rivaroxaban or warfarin for stroke prevention or safety endpoints.

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

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

Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Observations From the ROCKET AF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients receiving warfarin is well studied, limited data are available on the use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in this setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) (n=14 264), we compared baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin who did and did not undergo CIED implantation or revision. In this post-hoc, postrandomization, on-treatment analysis, only the first intervention per patient was analyzed. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 453 patients (242 rivaroxaban group; 211 warfarin group) underwent de novo CIED implantation (64.2%) or revision procedures (35.8%). Patients who received CIEDs were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have past myocardial infarction, but had similar stroke risk compared to patients who did not receive CIEDs. Most patients who received a device had study drug interrupted for the procedure and did not receive bridging anticoagulation. During the 30-day postprocedural period, 11 patients (4.55%) in the rivaroxaban group experienced bleeding complications compared with 15 (7.13%) in the warfarin group. Thromboembolic complications occurred in 3 patients (1.26%) in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (0.48%) in the warfarin group. Event rates were too low for formal hypothesis testing. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding and thromboembolic events were low in both rivaroxaban- and warfarin-treated patients. Periprocedural use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in CIED implantation requires further study in prospective, randomized trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Patients Taking Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Atrial Fibrillation (from the ROCKET AF Trial).

Non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (non-DHP CCBs) possess combined P-glycoprotein and moderate CYP3A4 inhibition, which may lead to increased exposure of medications that are substrates for these metabolic pathways, such as rivaroxaban. We evaluated the use and outcomes of non-DHP CCBs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF). We assessed clinical outcomes in patients who received non-DHP CCBs and the impact on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. Stroke or noncentral nervous system (CNS) systemic embolism (SE), major or nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding, all-cause death, and major bleeding were compared according to non-DHP CCB use. At randomization, 1,308 patients (9.2%) were taking a non-DHP CCB. They were more likely to be women, have diabetes and COPD, and less likely to have heart failure and had a lower mean CHADS2 score (3.3 vs 3.5). Non-DHP CCB use was not associated with an increased risk of stroke/non-CNS SE (p = 0.11) or the composite outcome of NMCR or major bleeding (p = 0.087). Non-DHP CCB use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04) and intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted hazard ratio 2.84, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.29). No significant difference was observed in the primary efficacy (stroke or non-CNS SE; adjusted interaction p value = 0.38) or safety outcome (NMCR or major bleeding; adjusted interaction p value = 0.14) between rivaroxaban and warfarin with non-DHP CCB use. In conclusion, although the overall use of non-DHP CCBs was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, the use was not associated with a significant change in the safety or efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin observed in ROCKET AF.

Relation of Risk of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation to Body Mass Index (from Patients Treated With Rivaroxaban and Warfarin in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation Trial).

We investigated stroke outcomes in normal weight (body mass index [BMI] 18.50 to 24.99 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.00 to 29.99 kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) patients with atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban and warfarin. We compared the incidence of stroke and systemic embolic events as well as bleeding events in normal weight (n = 3,289), overweight (n = 5,535), and obese (n = 5,206) patients in a post hoc analysis of the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation trial. Stroke and systemic embolic event rates per 100 patient-years were 2.93 in the normal weight group (reference group), 2.28 in the overweight group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, p = 0.04) and 1.88 in the obese group (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, p <0.001). The risk of stroke was statistically significantly lower for obese patients with BMI ≥35 than that for normal weight patients in both the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups (rivaroxaban: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.96, p = 0.033; warfarin: HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74, p <0.001). In conclusion, in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with anticoagulant therapy, increased BMI was associated with decreased stroke risk. Warfarin and the novel anticoagulant rivaroxaban are effective in stroke prevention in all subgroups of obese patients.

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

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

Risk Prediction for Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack in Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Stroke mainly occurs in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF). This study explored risk prediction models for ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients without AF. METHODS: Three US-based healthcare databases (Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters [CCAE], Medicare Supplemental [MDCR], and Optum Clinformatics [Optum]) were used to establish patient cohorts without AF during the index period of 2008-2012. The performance of 2 existing models (CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc) for predicting stroke and TIA was examined by fitting a logistic regression to a training dataset and evaluating predictive accuracy in a validation dataset (area under the curve, AUC) using patients with complete follow-up of 1 or 3 years, separately. RESULTS: The commercial populations were younger and had fewer comorbidities than Medicare-eligible population. The incidence proportions of ischemic stroke and TIA during 1 and 3 years of follow-up were .5% and 1.9% (CCAE), .6% and 2.2% (Optum), and 4.6% and 13.1% (MDCR), respectively. The models performed consistently across all 3 databases, with the AUC ranging from .69 to .77 and from .68 to .73 for 1- and 3-year prediction, respectively. Predictive accuracy was lower than the initial work of CHADS2 evaluation in patients with AF (AUC: .82), but consistent with a subsequent meta-analysis of CHADS2 (.60-.80) and CHA2DS2-VASc performance (.64-.79). CONCLUSION: Although the existing schemes for predicting ischemic stroke and TIA in patients with AF can be applied to patients without AF with comparable predictive accuracy, the evidence suggests that there is room for improvement in these models' performance.

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

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