Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in relation to age.

BACKGROUND: The J-ROCKET AF study found that rivaroxaban was non-inferior to warfarin with respect to the principal safety outcome in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this subgroup analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban and warfarin in relation to patient age. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 39.0% were elderly (aged ≥75 years). In elderly patients, the principal safety outcome occurred at 25.05%/year with rivaroxaban vs. 16.95%/year on warfarin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.16), whereas the primary efficacy endpoint occurred at 2.18%/year vs. 4.25%/year (HR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.20-1.27), respectively. There were significant interactions in the principal safety outcomes of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin between the elderly and non-elderly groups, but not in the primary efficacy endpoints (P=0.04 and 0.82 for both interactions, respectively). Furthermore, in elderly patients, in the rivaroxaban group there was a trend to increase the principal safety outcome regardless of renal function. In elderly patients with preserved renal function, however, patients on rivaroxaban had a marginally favorable trend in the primary efficacy endpoint incidence rate compared with patients on warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to carefully consider the risks and benefits of therapy with rivaroxaban in elderly patients with non-valvular AF.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in relation to hypertension: a subgroup analysis of the J-ROCKET AF trial.

The majority of the patients enrolled in the rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) trial had hypertension. In this subgroup analysis, we investigated differences in the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban and warfarin in subjects with and without hypertension. The baseline blood pressure (BP) measurements of patients with hypertension in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups were 130/77 mm Hg and 131/77 mm Hg, respectively, whereas those of patients without hypertension were 123/74 mm Hg and 124/73 mm Hg, respectively. The incidence rates of the principal safety outcomes in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups were 18.39% per year and 16.81% per year, respectively, among patients with baseline hypertension (hazard ratio (HR): 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-1.45) and 16.71% per year and 15.00% per year, respectively, among patients without hypertension at baseline (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.66-1.97), indicating no significant interaction (P=0.933). The incidence rates of the primary efficacy endpoints in the rivaroxaban group and the warfarin group were 0.54% per year and 2.24% per year, respectively, in patients without baseline hypertension (HR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.03-2.25), and 1.45% per year and 2.71% per year, respectively, in patients with baseline hypertension (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.25-1.16), indicating no significant interaction (P=0.509). In conclusion, the safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban was similar to that of warfarin, independent of baseline hypertensive status.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in relation to the CHADS2 score: a subgroup analysis of the J-ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from a trial of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in 1280 Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) revealed that rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the principal safety outcome. In this subanalysis, we investigated the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban and warfarin in relation to patients' CHADS2 scores. RESULTS: The mean CHADS2 score was 3.25, and the most frequent scores were 3 and 4. No statistically significant interactions were observed between principal safety outcome event rates and CHADS2 scores with respect to treatment groups (P value for interaction = .700). Irrespective of stratification into moderate- and high-risk groups based on CHADS2 scores of 2 and 3 or more, respectively, no differences in principal safety outcome event rates were observed between rivaroxaban- and warfarin-treated patients (moderate-risk group: hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], .58-1.95; high-risk group: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, .86-1.45; P value for interaction = .488). The primary efficacy end point rate in the rivaroxaban-treated group was numerically lower than in the warfarin-treated group, regardless of risk group stratification (moderate-risk group: HR, .46; 95% CI, .09-2.37; high-risk group: HR, .49; 95% CI, .22-1.11; P value for interaction = .935). CONCLUSION: This subanalysis indicated that the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin were similar, regardless of CHADS2 score.

Net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a subgroup analysis of J-ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors that have been identified for bleeding events with rivaroxaban are predominantly the same as those predicting thromboembolic ones in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Our aim was to determine the net clinical benefit (NCB) from the results of the J-ROCKET AF trial, in which rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin in Japanese patients with AF. METHODS: Two strategies were adopted to quantify the NCB. First, the NCB was calculated as the number of ischemic strokes avoided with anticoagulation minus the number of excess intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) with a weight of 1.5. Second, the composite end point of major bleeding events and secondary efficacy end points (stroke, noncentral nervous system systemic embolism, myocardial infarction and death) to ascertain the NCB were established. Subgroup analysis by CHADS2 score or creatinine clearance was also performed. RESULTS: The adjusted NCB, which was given a weight of 1.5 for ICH, was nominally significant in favor of rivaroxaban therapy (difference in incidence rate -2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -.26 to -3.99). Furthermore, the event rate of the composite end point tended to be lower in patients treated with rivaroxaban than in those treated with warfarin (rivaroxaban: 4.97% per year, warfarin: 6.11% per year; difference in incidence rate: -1.14; 95% CI: -3.40 to 1.12). The event rate of the composite end point tended to be consistently low in patients treated with rivaroxaban in the subanalysis by CHADS2 score and renal function. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the NCB supports that rivaroxaban therapy provides clinical benefit for Japanese patients with AF.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for the secondary prevention of stroke: a subgroup analysis of J-ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: The overall analysis of the rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) trial revealed that rivaroxaban was not inferior to warfarin with respect to the primary safety outcome. In addition, there was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic embolism with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. METHODS: In this subanalysis of the J-ROCKET AF trial, we investigated the consistency of safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among the subgroups of patients with previous stroke, transient ischemic attack, or non-central nervous system systemic embolism (secondary prevention group) and those without (primary prevention group). RESULTS: Patients in the secondary prevention group were 63.6% of the overall population of J-ROCKET AF. In the secondary prevention group, the rate of the principal safety outcome (% per year) was 17.02 in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 18.26 in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.29), while the rate of the primary efficacy endpoint was 1.66 in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 3.25 in warfarin-treated patients (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.23-1.14). There were no significant interactions in the principal safety and the primary efficacy endpoints of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin between the primary and secondary prevention groups (P=.090 and .776 for both interactions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was consistent among patients in the primary prevention group and those in the secondary prevention group.

Confirmation of model-based dose selection for a Japanese phase III study of rivaroxaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients.

This study was designed to confirm the appropriateness of the dose setting for a Japanese phase III study of rivaroxaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), which had been based on model simulation employing phase II study data. The previously developed mixed-effects pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model, which consisted of an oral one-compartment model parameterized in terms of clearance, volume and a first-order absorption rate, was rebuilt and optimized using the data for 597 subjects from the Japanese phase III study, J-ROCKET AF. A mixed-effects modeling technique in NONMEM was used to quantify both unexplained inter-individual variability and inter-occasion variability, which are random effect parameters. The final PK and PK-PD models were evaluated to identify influential covariates. The empirical Bayes estimates of AUC and C(max) from the final PK model were consistent with the simulated results from the Japanese phase II study. There was no clear relationship between individual estimated exposures and safety-related events, and the estimated exposure levels were consistent with the global phase III data. Therefore, it was concluded that the dose selected for the phase III study with Japanese NVAF patients by means of model simulation employing phase II study data had been appropriate from the PK-PD perspective.

Safety and efficacy of adjusted dose of rivaroxaban in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: subanalysis of J-ROCKET AF for patients with moderate renal impairment.

BACKGROUND: In the Japanese Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (J-ROCKET AF) study, rivaroxaban 15 mg once daily was given to patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 50 ml/min (preserved renal function), and was reduced to 10mg once daily in patients with CrCl 30-49 ml/min (moderate renal impairment). The aim of this subanalysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of the adjusted dose of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in a cohort with moderate renal impairment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Compared with patients with preserved renal function, those with moderate renal impairment (22.2% of all randomized patients) had higher rates of bleeding and stroke events irrespective of study treatment. Among those with moderate renal impairment, the principal safety endpoint occurred at 27.76%/year with rivaroxaban vs. 22.85%/year with warfarin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-1.91) and the rate of the primary efficacy endpoint was 2.77%/year vs. 3.34%/year (HR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.25-2.69), respectively. There were no significant interactions between renal function and study treatment in the principal safety and the primary efficacy endpoints (P=0.628, 0.279 for both interactions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin were consistent in patients with moderate renal impairment and preserved renal function.

Model-based dose selection for phase III rivaroxaban study in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The global ROCKET AF phase III trial evaluated rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (o.d.) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Based on rivaroxaban pharmacokinetics in Japanese subjects and lower anticoagulation preferences in Japan, particularly in elderly patients, the optimal dose regimen for Japanese AF patients was considered. The aim of this analysis was dose selection for Japanese patients from a pharmacokinetic aspect by comparison of simulated exposure in Japanese patients with those in Caucasian patients. As a result of population pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics analyses, a one-compartment pharmacokinetic model with first-order absorption and direct link pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models optimally described the plasma concentration and pharmacodynamic models (Factor Xa activity, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and HepTest), which were also consistent with previous works. Steady-state simulations indicated 15 mg rivaroxaban o.d. doses in Japanese patients with AF would yield exposures comparable to the 20 mg o.d. dose in Caucasian patients with AF. In conclusion, in the context of the lower anticoagulation targets in Japanese practice, the population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling supports 15 mg o.d. as the principal rivaroxaban dose in J-ROCKET AF.

Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation ­ the J-ROCKET AF study ­.

BACKGROUND: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15 mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). CONCLUSIONS: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.