Rivaroxaban vs Vitamin K Antagonist in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease.

Background: Treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) has been linked to worsening of kidney function in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives: XARENO (Factor XA-inhibition in RENal patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation Observational registry; NCT02663076) is a prospective observational study comparing adverse kidney outcomes in patients with AF and advanced chronic kidney disease receiving rivaroxaban or VKA. Methods: Patients with AF and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 15 to 49 mL/min/1.73 m2 were included. Blinded adjudicated outcome analysis evaluated adverse kidney outcomes (a composite of eGFR decline to <15 mL/min/1.73 m2, need for chronic kidney replacement therapy, or development of acute kidney injury). A composite net clinical benefit outcome (stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, or cardiovascular death) was also analyzed. HRs with 95% CIs were calculated using propensity score overlap weighting Cox regression. Results: There were 1,455 patients (764 rivaroxaban; 691 VKA; mean age 78 years; 44% females). The mean eGFR was 37.1 ± 9.0 in those receiving rivaroxaban and 36.4 ± 10.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 in those receiving VKA. After a median follow-up of 2.1 years, rivaroxaban was associated with less adverse kidney outcomes (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43-0.88) and all-cause death (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.98). No significant differences were observed in net clinical benefit. Conclusions: In patients with AF and advanced chronic kidney disease, those receiving rivaroxaban had less adverse kidney events and lower all-cause mortality compared to those receiving VKA, supporting the use of rivaroxaban in this high-risk group of patients.

Using 30-day modified rankin scale score to predict 90-day score in patients with intracranial hemorrhage: Derivation and validation of prediction model.

Whether 30-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores can predict 90-day scores is unclear. This study derived and validated a model to predict ordinal 90-day mRS score in an intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) population using 30-day mRS values and routinely available baseline variables. Adults enrolled in the Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage-2 (ATACH-2) trial between May 2011 and September 2015 with acute ICH, who were alive at 30 days and had mRS scores reported at both 30 and 90 days were included in this post-hoc analysis. A proportional odds regression model for predicting ordinal 90-day mRS scores was developed and internally validated using bootstrapping. Variables in the model included: mRS score at 30 days, age (years), hematoma volume (cm3), hematoma location (deep [basal ganglia, thalamus], lobar, or infratentorial), presence of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at randomization. We assessed model fit, calibration, discrimination, and agreement (ordinal, dichotomized functional independence), and EuroQol-5D ([EQ-5D] utility weighted) between predicted and observed 90-day mRS. A total of 898/1000 participants were included. Following bootstrap internal validation, our model (calibration slope = 0.967) had an optimism-corrected c-index of 0.884 (95% CI = 0.873-0.896) and R2 = 0.712 for 90-day mRS score. The weighted ĸ for agreement between observed and predicted ordinal 90-day mRS score was 0.811 (95% CI = 0.787-0.834). Agreement between observed and predicted functional independence (mRS score of 0-2) at 90 days was 74.3% (95% CI = 69.9-78.7%). The mean ± SD absolute difference between predicted and observed EQ-5D-weighted mRS score was negligible (0.005 ± 0.145). This tool allows practitioners and researchers to utilize clinically available information along with the mRS score 30 days after ICH to reliably predict the mRS score at 90 days.

Andexanet alfa versus PCC products for factor Xa inhibitor bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.

Comparison of rivaroxaban and low molecular weight heparin in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a Swedish national population-based register study.

BACKGROUND: Treating cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) with anticoagulation prevents recurrent venous thromboembolism (rVTE), but increases bleeding risk. OBJECTIVES: To compare incidence of rVTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality for rivaroxaban versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with CAT. METHODS: We developed a cohort study using Swedish national registers 2013-2019. Patients with CAT (venous thromboembolism within 6 months of cancer diagnosis) were included. Those with other indications or with high bleeding risk cancers were excluded (according to guidelines). Follow-up was from index-CAT until outcome, death, emigration, or end of study. Incidence rates (IR) per 1000 person-years with 95% confidence interval (CI) and propensity score overlap-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) for rivaroxaban versus LMWH were estimated. RESULTS: We included 283 patients on rivaroxaban and 5181 on LMWH. The IR for rVTE was 68.7 (95% CI 40.0-109.9) for rivaroxaban, compared with 91.6 (95% CI 81.9-102.0) for LMWH, with adjusted HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.43-1.35). The IR for major bleeding was 23.5 (95% CI 8.6-51.1) for rivaroxaban versus 49.2 (95% CI 42.3-56.9) for LMWH, with adjusted HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.26-1.49). The IR for all-cause mortality was 146.8 (95% CI 103.9-201.5) for rivaroxaban and 565.6 (95% CI 541.8-590.2) for LMWH with adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.34-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban performed similarly to LMWH for patients with CAT for rVTE and major bleeding. An all-cause mortality benefit was observed for rivaroxaban which potentially may be attributed to residual confounding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05150938 (Registered 9 December 2021).

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Reduced Doses of Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: This Nordic observational cohort study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of reduced-dose direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared to standard warfarin for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS: The study, utilizing nationwide administrative databases from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, spanned from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018 (2017 for Sweden). The cohort included 26,883 patients initiating reduced-dose DOACs and 108,014 comparable warfarin patients. Effectiveness was measured by the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism, while safety was assessed through intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: The meta-analysis across countries revealed similar or lower incidences of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism in patients on reduced-dose DOACs compared to standard warfarin (rivaroxaban: HR 0.93, dabigatran: HR 0.88, apixaban: HR 0.79). Incidences within warfarin groups ranged from 2.16 to 3.71 per 100 person-years, comparable to DOAC recipients. Intracranial hemorrhage rates were generally low, ranging from 0.16 to 1.85 per 100 person-years. In comparison with warfarin patients, meta-analyses yielded HRs for rivaroxaban (1.41), dabigatran (0.35), and apixaban (0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, atrial fibrillation patients initiating reduced-dose rivaroxaban and dabigatran exhibited incidences of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism similar to warfarin, and for apixaban, even lower. Rates of intracranial hemorrhage were comparable to or lower for patients on DOACs compared to warfarin.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Active Cancer Receiving Rivaroxaban or Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin: The OSCAR-UK Study.

BACKGROUND: In most patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CT), essentially those not at high risk of bleeding, guidelines recommend treatment with direct oral anticoagulants as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). Population-based studies comparing these therapies are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrences, significant bleeding, and all-cause mortality in patients with CT receiving rivaroxaban or LMWHs. PATIENTS/METHODS: Using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink data from 2013 to 2020, we generated a cohort of patients with first CT treated initially with either rivaroxaban or LMWH. Patients were observed 12 months for VTE recurrences, significant bleeds (major bleeds or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding requiring hospitalization), and all-cause mortality. Overlap weighted sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHRs) compared rivaroxaban with LMWH in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 2,259 patients with first CT, 314 receiving rivaroxaban, and 1,945 LMWH, mean age 72.4 and 66.9 years, respectively. In the 12-month observational period, 184 person-years following rivaroxaban and 1,057 following LMWH, 10 and 66 incident recurrent VTE events, 20 and 102 significant bleeds, and 10 and 133 deaths were observed in rivaroxaban and LMWH users, respectively. The weighted SHR at 12 months for VTE recurrences in rivaroxaban compared with LMWH were 0.80 (0.37-1.73); for significant bleeds 1.01 (0.57-1.81); and for all-cause mortality 0.49 (0.23-1.06). CONCLUSION: Patients with CT, not at high risk of bleeding, treated with either rivaroxaban or LMWH have comparable effectiveness and safety outcomes. This supports the recommendation that rivaroxaban is a reasonable alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CT.

Agreement between 30-day and 90-day modified Rankin Scale score and utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale score in acute intracerebral hemorrhage: An analysis of ATACH-2 trial data.

The relationship between 30- and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients was evaluated. This post hoc cohort analysis of the ATACH-2 trial included patients with acute ICH who were alive at 30 days and who had mRS scores reported at 30 and 90 days. The mRS score was then converted to a utility (EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level [EQ-5D-3L])-weighted mRS score. After adjustment of 30-day mRS score for key covariates using multivariable ordinal regression, the relationship between 30-day and observed 90-day functional outcome was assessed via absolute difference in the utility-weighted version. Of the 1000 trial subjects, 898 met inclusion criteria. This low-moderate severity ICH cohort had a median baseline GCS score of 15 and median hematoma volume of 9.7 mL. Observed 30-day mRS had the largest association with observed 90-day values (χ2 = 302.9, p < 0.0001). Patients generally either maintained the same mRS scores between 30 and 90 days (48 %) or experienced a 1-point (32 %) or 2-point (10 %) improvement by 90 days. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) EQ-5D-3L at 90 days was 0.67 ± 0.26. Following adjustment, the mean absolute difference between predicted and observed utility-weighted 90-day mRS scores was 0.006 ± 0.13 points and less than the estimated minimal clinically important difference of 0.13 points. The difference in average utility-weighted mRS scores at 30 and 90 days was not clinically relevant, suggesting 30-day score may be a reasonable proxy for 90-day values in patients with ICH when 90-day values are not available.

Lower mortality with andexanet alfa vs 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for factor Xa inhibitor-related major bleeding in a U.S. hospital-based observational study.

Background: Well-designed studies with sufficient sample size comparing andexanet alfa vs 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in routine clinical practice to evaluate clinical outcomes are limited. Objectives: To compare in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeding who were treated with andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC. Methods: An observational cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05548777) was conducted using electronic health records between May 2018 and September 2022 from 354 U.S. hospitals. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, inpatient admission with diagnosis code D68.32 (bleeding due to extrinsic anticoagulation), a record of use of the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban or apixaban, andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC treatment during index hospitalization, and a documented discharge disposition. Multivariable logistic regression on in-hospital mortality with andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed via a supportive propensity score-weighted logistic regression. Results: The analysis included 4395 patients (andexanet alfa, n = 2122; 4F-PCC, n = 2273). There were 1328 patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), 2567 with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds, and 500 with critical compartment or other bleed types. In the multivariable analysis, odds of in-hospital mortality were 50% lower for andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.65; P < .01) and were consistent for both ICH (OR, 0.55; [0.39-0.76]; P < .01) and GI bleeds (OR, 0.49 [0.29-0.81]; P = .01). Similar results were obtained from the supporting propensity score-weighted logistic regression analyses. Conclusion: In this large observational study, treatment with andexanet alfa in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeds was associated with 50% lower odds of in-hospital mortality than 4F-PCC. The magnitude of the risk reduction was similar in ICH and GI bleeds.

Rivaroxaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in a Broad Cohort of Patients With Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: An Analysis of the OSCAR-US Program.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants as alternatives to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in most patients. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus LMWH for a broad CAT cohort. The cohort study used electronic health data from January 2012 to December 2020 to evaluate patients with active cancer experiencing acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH. Propensity score-overlap weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for VTE, bleeding-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality were calculated. In total, 4935 patients were identified (27.9% on rivaroxaban and 72.1% on LMWH). The cancer types included gastrointestinal (29.4%), genitourinary (26.2%), lung (24.0%), breast (19.7%), and hematologic (14.4%). Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in recurrent VTE versus LMWH among all patients with cancer (HR = 0.78; 95%CI = 0.61-0.99) at 3 months. No differences in bleeding-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality were observed. Directionally similar results to those at 3 months were observed at 6 months for all outcomes. In conclusion, we observed fewer recurrent VTE cases and no increase in bleeding-related hospitalizations with rivaroxaban versus LMWH at 3 months in this patient cohort with various cancer types.