Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with diabetes and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: 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 Trial)

Comparison of the Incidence of Major Bleeding With Rivaroxaban Use Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common co-morbidity in those with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Most patients with DM and NVAF have a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of ≥1 and should be considered for oral anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention per treatment guidelines. The most important risk associated with anticoagulation is bleeding, which may be higher in those with NVAF plus DM. Our objective was to evaluate the incidence and characteristics of major bleeding (MB) in rivaroxaban users diagnosed with NVAF, further comparing those with DM versus those without DM, in a real-world clinical setting. Electronic medical records of >10 million patients from the Department of Defense Military Health System were queried to identify rivaroxaban users with NVAF over a 2.5-year period. Major bleeding-related hospitalization was identified by a validated case-finding algorithm. Patient characteristics, incidence and management of MB, and fatal outcomes were assessed by DM status. Of 44,793 rivaroxaban users with NVAF, 12,039 (26.9%) had DM, who were more likely men, younger, with more co-morbidity and higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores. Major bleeding incidence was higher among those with DM compared with those without, 3.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.37 to 4.03) versus 2.51 (95% CI 2.34 to 2.69) per 100 person-years, and intracranial bleeding incidence was 0.19 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.28) versus 0.25 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.31) per 100 person-years. Fatal outcomes were rare for both cohorts, 0.09 per 100 person-years. In conclusion, in this post-marketing study of 44,793 rivaroxaban users with NVAF, patients with DM had more co-morbidities and higher incidence of MB compared with those without DM.

Safety and efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in diabetic patients with atrial fibrillation: A study-level meta-analysis of phase III randomized trials

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the safety and efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs warfarin according to diabetes mellitus (DM) status are not completely characterized. We performed a meta-analysis to clarify whether in these patients the strategy of oral anticoagulation should be tailored to diabetes status. In this study-level meta-analysis, we included 4 randomized phase III trials comparing NOACs and warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF; a total of 18 134 patients with DM and 40 454 without DM were overall considered. Incidence of the following outcome measures was evaluated during the follow-up: stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and vascular death. Use of NOACs compared with warfarin reduced stroke/systemic embolism in diabetic (Risk Ratios [RR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93; P = .004) and nondiabetic patients (RR 0.83, 0.73-0.93; P = .001) (P for interaction .72). No interaction between diabetes status and benefits of NOACs was found for the occurrence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, or intracranial bleeding (P for interaction >.05 for each comparison). Reduction of vascular death rates with NOACs was significant in diabetic patients (4.97% vs 5.99% with warfarin; RR 0.83, 0.72-0.96; P = .01), in whom absolute the reduction of this outcome measure was higher than in nondiabetics (1.02% vs 0.27%), although no interaction was present (P = .23). Results of this meta-analysis support the safety and efficacy of NOACs compared with warfarin in diabetic patients with nonvalvular AF.

Primary and key secondary results from the ROCKET AF trial, and their implications on clinical practice

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban were studied 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 trial). A number of subanalyses of the ROCKET AF trial have subsequently analyzed the use of rivaroxaban in special patient populations.

METHODS

The outcomes of the ROCKET AF trial were reviewed. The use of rivaroxaban in higher risk populations, as determined by the presence of co-morbidities included in the CHADS2 criteria, was analyzed. Requirements for dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment and in East Asian patients were described. Finally, clinical management challenges, including interruptions in therapy, drug discontinuation, management of bleeding events, drug interactions, and management of patients requiring cardioversion/ablation were reviewed.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban is efficacious in high-risk populations, including elderly patients, patients with diabetes, heart failure, history of stroke, prior myocardial infarction, or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Patients with PAD have a higher risk of bleeding with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. East Asian populations do not require a dose adjustment for rivaroxaban, while a reduced dose of 15 mg daily is required for patients with moderate renal impairment. Rivaroxaban remains effective with temporary interruptions in therapy and in patients requiring cardioversion/ablation. Rates of major bleeding and subsequent outcomes were similar in patients on warfarin and rivaroxaban, although rates of gastrointestinal bleeding were higher with rivaroxaban. Concurrent use of antiarrhythmic therapy was not associated with adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Rivaroxaban represents an efficacious alternative to warfarin in high-risk patients with AF. Dose adjustment is required for patients with moderate renal impairment. Rivaroxaban can be used safely in a number of challenging clinical management scenarios although the concurrent use of amiodarone requires more study.

Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Clinical Practice: Focus on Rivaroxaban in Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Despite direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have overcome the most relevant limitations of vitamin K antagonists, many patients with atrial fibrillation are not receiving the appropriate anticoagulant therapy. In addition, when patients are anticoagulated with DOACs, some of them are not taking the dose recommended in the summary of product characteristics. This may be related, at least in part, to the concern about the applicability of findings from randomized clinical trials to real-life patients. In this context, performing studies in daily clinical practice to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs in real-world setting is mandatory. The aim of this review is to update the current evidence regarding safety of rivaroxaban in clinical practice. 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) showed that rivaroxaban was at least as effective as warfarin for preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with similar rates of major bleeding but with lesser risk of intracranial and fatal bleedings. Data from noninterventional studies and registries have confirmed the good results of ROCKET-AF. Even more, rates of bleeding may be inferior in real-life patients, since they have a lower risk profile than those included in ROCKET-AF.

Once-daily rivaroxaban for long-term stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Oral anticoagulation is the long-term standard of care for preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, anticoagulation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding, such that its use should be based on the absolute risks of stroke and bleeding, and the relative benefit-risk profile of the individual patient. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, including rivaroxaban, are alternatives to vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin in this setting, and are supported in treatment guidelines as the optimal choice for patients with AF at moderate to high risk of stroke. Rivaroxaban can be given in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring, and phase III studies have demonstrated its safety profile and efficacy in patients with non-valvular AF, including the elderly and those with co-morbidities. Moreover, rivaroxaban is administered once daily, which has advantages for optimal patient adherence to medication over the long term. The established efficacy and safety profile of rivaroxaban, together with its convenient once-daily dosing schedule, may contribute to improved patient outcomes and lead to sustained benefits for patients with non-valvular AF at risk of stroke.

Management of novel oral anticoagulants in emergency and trauma surgery

BACKGROUND

The compelling safety, efficacy and predictable effect of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is driving a rapid expansion in their therapeutic indications. Management of the increasing number of patients on those new agents in the setting of emergency or trauma surgery can be challenging and the absence of specific reversal agents has been a matter of concern. This review summarises the key principles that underpin the management of those patients with a particular emphasis on the recent development of specific antidotes.

FINDINGS

As of 2015, a new line of antidotes, specific for these drugs, are at different stages of their development with their release imminent. However, as NOACs are innately reversible due to their short half-life, the use of reversal agents will probably be restricted to a few exceptional cases. Post-marketing surveillance will be paramount to better clarify the role of these promising drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of patients on NOACs in the context of emergency or trauma surgery relies on best supportive care in combination with the blood products and/or specific antidotes as required. Familiarity with the new reversal agents is essential but further evidence on their indications, safety and efficacy as well as consensus guidelines are warranted prior to widespread adoption.