Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease

[Not Available]

A report was presented on all four Hot Line: Late-Breaking Clinical Trials sessions of the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2017 on the results of new clinical research in cardiology.

Anticoagulation in the cardiac patient: A concise review

Anticoagulation has multiple roles in the treatment of cardiovascular disease, including in management of acute myocardial infarction, during percutaneous coronary intervention, as stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial arrhythmias, and in patients with mechanical heart valves. Clinical anticoagulation choices in the aforementioned diseases vary widely, due to conflicting data to support established agents and the rapid evolution of evidence-based practice that parallels more widespread use of novel oral anticoagulants. This review concisely summarizes evidence-based guidelines for anticoagulant use in cardiovascular disease, and highlights new data specific to direct oral anticoagulants.

Low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events: an evaluation of COMPASS

The cardiovascular outcomes for people using anticoagulation strategies (NCT01776424) trial randomized 27,395 patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease (PAD) to receive rivaroxaban 5 mg twice-daily alone, the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice-daily and aspirin 100 mg daily, or aspirin 100 mg daily alone. The combination arm resulted in a 24% reduction in the primary end point of cardiovascular death, stroke or myocardial infarction, and an 18% reduction in mortality. Rivaroxaban alone did not produce any additional benefit compared with aspirin. The combination therapy also reduced major adverse limb events, including amputation, in patients with PAD. Based on these results, the addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin is expected to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with stable coronary or PAD.

Vitamin K Antagonists, Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants, and Vascular Calcification in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Background  Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are associated with coronary artery calcification in low-risk populations, but their effect on calcification of large arteries remains uncertain. The effect of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) on vascular calcification is unknown. We investigated the influence of use of VKA and NOAC on calcification of the aorta and aortic valve. Methods  In patients with atrial fibrillation without a history of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events who underwent computed tomographic angiography, the presence of ascending aorta calcification (AsAC), descending aorta calcification (DAC), and aortic valve calcification (AVC) was determined. Confounders for VKA/NOAC treatment were identified and propensity score adjusted logistic regression explored the association between treatment and calcification (Agatston score > 0). AsAC, DAC, and AVC differences were assessed in propensity score-matched groups. Results  Of 236 patients (33% female, age: 58 ± 9 years), 71 (30%) used VKA (median duration: 122 weeks) and 79 (34%) used NOAC (median duration: 16 weeks). Propensity score-adjusted logistic regression revealed that use of VKA was significantly associated with AsAC (odds ratio [OR]: 2.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-4.59; p  = 0.017) and DAC (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.22-4.67; p  = 0.012) and a trend in AVC (OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 0.98-3.80; p  = 0.059) compared with non-anticoagulation. This association was absent in NOAC versus non-anticoagulant (AsAC OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.21-1.21; p  = 0.127; DAC OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.36-1.76; p  = 0.577; AVC OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.27-1.40; p  = 0.248). A total of 178 patients were propensity score matched in three pairwise comparisons. Again, use of VKA was associated with DAC ( p  = 0.043) and a trend toward more AsAC ( p  = 0.059), while use of NOAC was not (AsAC p  = 0.264; DAC p  = 0.154; AVC p  = 0.280). Conclusion  This cross-sectional study shows that use of VKA seems to contribute to vascular calcification. The calcification effect was not observed in NOAC users.

Testing and monitoring direct oral anticoagulants

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have significantly improved the care of patients requiring anticoagulation. With similar or better efficacy and safety outcomes and easier use in the outpatient setting compared with the standard-of-care vitamin K antagonists and low molecular weight heparin, DOACs are now endorsed as first-line treatment of indications including prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and treatment of venous thromboembolism. DOACs are easy-to-use oral agents that offer simple dosing and short half-lives, with no need to test levels because of the wide therapeutic window and limited drug-drug interactions. After almost a decade of DOAC use, the question of testing DOAC levels in certain clinical situations has become the focus of debate. Although guidance for using routine coagulation tests is available, these tests are inadequate for optimal care. DOAC-specific tests have been developed but have limited availability in Europe and less availability in the United States. None are licensed. DOAC testing may be useful in the setting of critical clinical situations such as life-threatening bleeding or need for emergent surgery, especially with the availability of DOAC reversal agents. Patients with characteristics that fall outside the normal range may benefit from the guidance that DOAC testing could offer. Obstacles to adopting DOAC testing have been raised, such as test reliability and staffing costs; however, these problems are rapidly being resolved. Further investigation of the role of DOAC testing is needed to explore its full potential and role in clinical practice.

Polyvascular Disease and Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Peripheral Artery Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the EUCLID Trial

IMPORTANCE

The effect of polyvascular disease on cardiovascular outcomes in the background of peripheral artery disease (PAD) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of ischemic events (both cardiac and limb) among patients with PAD and polyvascular disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this post hoc secondary analysis of the international Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease (EUCLID) trial, outcomes were compared among 13 885 enrolled patients with PAD alone, PAD + coronary artery disease (CAD), PAD + cerebrovascular disease (CVD), and PAD + CAD + CVD. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were implemented to determine the risk associated with polyvascular disease and outcomes, and intention-to-treat analysis was performed. The EUCLID trial was conducted from December 31, 2012, to March 7, 2014; the present post hoc analysis was performed from June 1, 2017, to February 5, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

EUCLID evaluated ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in preventing major adverse cardiac events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemic stroke) and major bleeding in patients with PAD.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke. Key secondary end points included the individual components of the primary end point and acute limb ischemia leading to hospitalization, major amputation, and lower-extremity revascularization. The primary end point of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The EUCLID trial randomized 13 885 patients with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range, 60-73 years), of whom 3888 (28.0%) were women. At baseline, 7804 patients (56.2%) had PAD alone; 2639 (19.0%) had PAD + CAD; 2049 (14.8%) had PAD + CVD; and 1393 (10.0%) had PAD + CAD + CVD. Compared with patients with isolated PAD, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for major adverse cardiac events were 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.57; P < .001) for PAD + CVD, 1.65 (95% CI, 1.43-1.91; P < .001) for PAD + CAD, and 1.99 (95% CI, 1.69-2.34; P < .001) for PAD + CAD + CVD. The aHRs for lower-extremity revascularization were 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.34; P = .01) for PAD + CAD, 1.17 (95% CI, 1.02-1.35; P = .02) for PAD + CVD, and 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.57; P < .001) for PAD + CAD + CVD. Polyvascular disease was not associated with an increased risk of acute limb ischemia (aHR for PAD + CVD, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.62-1.34, P = .63; PAD + CAD, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.34, P = .69; and PAD + CAD + CVD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63-1.53, P = .93), major amputation (aHR for PAD + CVD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54-1.27, P = .40; PAD + CAD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.47-1.16, P = .19; and PAD + CAD + CVD, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.80, P = .65), or TIMI major bleeding (PAD + CVD, 0.98; 0.66-1.44, P = .91; PAD + CAD, 1.04; 0.74-1.48, P = .81; and PAD + CAD + CVD, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.51, P = .88).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with patients with PAD alone, the risk of major adverse cardiac events and lower-extremity revascularization increased with multiple vascular bed involvement. There was no clear increased risk of bleeding associated with polyvascular disease.

Oral anticoagulant use in cardiovascular disorders: a perspective on present and potential indications for rivaroxaban

BACKGROUND

Four non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been approved for use in various cardiovascular indications. The direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and the direct factor Xa inhibitors apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban are now increasingly used in clinical practice. For some of these agents, available data from real-world studies support the efficacy and safety data in phase III clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to summarize the current status of trials and observational studies of oral anticoagulant use over the spectrum of cardiovascular disorders (excluding venous thrombosis), provide a reference source beyond stroke prevention for atrial fibrillation (AF) and examine the potential for novel applications in the cardiovascular field.

METHODS

We searched the recent literature for data on completed and upcoming trials of oral anticoagulants with a particular focus on rivaroxaban.

RESULTS

Recent data in specific patient subgroups, such as patients with AF undergoing catheter ablation or cardioversion, have led to an extended approval for rivaroxaban, whereas the other NOACs have ongoing or recently completed trials in this setting. However, there are unmet medical needs for several arterial thromboembolic-related conditions, including patients with: AF and acute coronary syndrome, AF and coronary artery disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease, implanted cardiac devices, and embolic stroke of unknown source.

CONCLUSION

NOACs may provide alternative treatment options in areas of unmet need, and numerous studies are underway to assess their benefit-risk profiles in these settings.

Association of Blood Pressure Measurements With Peripheral Artery Disease Events

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend treating hypertension in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) to reduce the risk of cardiac events and stroke, but the effect of reducing blood pressure on lower extremity PAD events is largely unknown. We investigated the association of blood pressure with lower extremity PAD events using data from the ALLHAT trial (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial).

METHODS

ALLHAT investigated the effect of different antihypertensive medication classes (chlorthalidone, amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin) on cardiovascular events. With the use of these data, the primary outcome in our analysis was time to first lower extremity PAD event, defined as PAD-related hospitalization, procedures, medical treatment, or PAD-related death. Given the availability of longitudinal standardized blood pressure measurements, we analyzed systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse pressure as time-varying categorical variables (reference categories 120-129 mm Hg for SBP, 70-79 mm Hg for DBP, and 45-54 mm Hg for pulse pressure) in separate models. We used extended Cox regression with death as a competing risk to calculate the association of each blood pressure component with PAD events, and report the results as subdistribution hazard ratios and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The present analysis included 33 357 patients with an average age of 67.4 years, 53.1% men, 59.7% white race, and 36.2% with diabetes mellitus. The median baseline blood pressure was 146/84 mm Hg. Participants were followed for a median of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.6-5.3) years, during which time 1489 (4.5%) had a lower extremity PAD event, and 4148 (12.4%) died. In models adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, SBP <120 mm Hg was associated with a 26% (CI, 5%-52%; P=0.015) higher hazard and SBP≥160 mm Hg was associated with a 21% (CI, 0%-48%; P=0.050) higher hazard for a PAD event, in comparison with SBP 120 to 129 mm Hg. In contrast, lower, but not higher, DBP was associated with a higher hazard of PAD events: for DBP <60 mm Hg (hazard ratio, 1.72; CI, 1.38-2.16). Pulse pressure had a U-shaped association with PAD events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this reanalysis of data from ALLHAT, we found a higher rate of lower extremity PAD events with higher and lower SBP and pulse pressure and with lower DBP. Given the recent revised blood pressure guidelines advocating lower SBP targets for overall cardiovascular risk reduction, further refinement of optimal blood pressure targets specific to PAD is needed.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

Lower extremity arterial disease in patients with diabetes: a contemporary narrative review

Lower-extremity arterial disease (LEAD) is a major endemic disease with an alarming increased prevalence worldwide. It is a common and severe condition with excess risk of major cardiovascular events and death. It also leads to a high rate of lower-limb adverse events and non-traumatic amputation. The American Diabetes Association recommends a widespread medical history and clinical examination to screen for LEAD. The ankle brachial index (ABI) is the first non-invasive tool recommended to diagnose LEAD although its variable performance in patients with diabetes. The performance of ABI is particularly affected by the presence of peripheral neuropathy, medial arterial calcification, and incompressible arteries. There is no strong evidence today to support an alternative test for LEAD diagnosis in these conditions. The management of LEAD requires a strict control of cardiovascular risk factors including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. The benefit of intensive versus standard glucose control on the risk of LEAD has not been clearly established. Antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet agents are obviously worthfull to reduce major cardiovascular adverse events, but few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the benefits of these treatments in terms of LEAD and its related adverse events. Smoking cessation, physical activity, supervised walking rehabilitation and healthy diet are also crucial in LEAD management. Several advances have been achieved in endovascular and surgical revascularization procedures, with obvious improvement in LEAD management. The revascularization strategy should take into account several factors including anatomical localizations of lesions, medical history of each patients and operator experience. Further studies, especially RCTs, are needed to evaluate the interest of different therapeutic strategies on the occurrence and progression of LEAD and its related adverse events in patients with diabetes.

Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Aspirin use reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events but increases the risk of bleeding; the balance of benefits and hazards for the prevention of first cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned adults who had diabetes but no evident cardiovascular disease to receive aspirin at a dose of 100 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the first serious vascular event (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause, excluding any confirmed intracranial hemorrhage). The primary safety outcome was the first major bleeding event (i.e., intracranial hemorrhage, sight-threatening bleeding event in the eye, gastrointestinal bleeding, or other serious bleeding). Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal tract cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 15,480 participants underwent randomization. During a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, serious vascular events occurred in a significantly lower percentage of participants in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (658 participants [8.5%] vs. 743 [9.6%]; rate ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01). In contrast, major bleeding events occurred in 314 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group, as compared with 245 (3.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52; P=0.003), with most of the excess being gastrointestinal bleeding and other extracranial bleeding. There was no significant difference between the aspirin group and the placebo group in the incidence of gastrointestinal tract cancer (157 participants [2.0%] and 158 [2.0%], respectively) or all cancers (897 [11.6%] and 887 [11.5%]); long-term follow-up for these outcomes is planned.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin use prevented serious vascular events in persons who had diabetes and no evident cardiovascular disease at trial entry, but it also caused major bleeding events. The absolute benefits were largely counterbalanced by the bleeding hazard. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; ASCEND Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00135226 .).

Arterial thrombosis and cancer

Cancer-associated arterial thrombotic events (ATEs) are increasingly recognized in specific malignancies and in association with the expanding armamentarium of novel chemotherapeutic agents. The improved cancer survival led to cardiovascular complications becoming clinically relevant many years after cancer diagnosis. The pathobiology of ATEs in cancer is complex and the individual patient risk for an ATE entails a multifactorial interaction between the traditional cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, the specific malignancy and selected therapy. Treatment with several specific chemotherapeutic agents, immunomodulatory drugs, vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and radiotherapy, impart increased risk for ATEs that result from specific therapy-related mechanisms, often involving endothelial injury. Cancer cell-specific prothrombotic properties are important players in the pathogenesis of cancer-associated hypercoagulability. There are distinct biological and molecular processes preferentially activated in specific cancer cells which can trigger ATEs, including platelet activation, increased expression of procoagulants and suppression of fibrinolytic activity. ATEs portend adverse prognosis in cancer patients. Prevention and treatment of cancer-associated ATEs may be improved by greater awareness and careful monitoring for vascular toxicity, aggressive effort to optimize conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and use of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents in selected patients. These issues are targets for future studies aimed to reduce ATEs in patients with cancer.

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and the risk of myocardial infarction: Differences between factor IIa and factor Xa inhibition?

Guidelines already recommend non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) over vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, recommendations are lacking with respect to which NOAC to use. At the moment, NOACs may employ two different molecular mechanisms: Factor IIa inhibition (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibition (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban). The focus of this review is to compare and contrast potential differences between factor IIa- and factor Xa inhibition with respect to risk of myocardial infarction and to detail underlying mechanisms.

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 .).

Antithrombotic therapies for elderly patients: handling problems originating from their comorbidities

Compared with younger people, elderly people have higher risks for both thrombosis and bleeding. Furthermore, comorbidities frequently found in elderly patients complicate the management of antithrombotic therapy. Thus, when treating these patients, physicians often find it difficult to incorporate the principles of evidence-based medicine and must determine the best treatment option for each patient. Recently, in the fields of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases, researchers have been rapidly accumulating new data regarding antithrombotic therapy, particularly in the areas of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, information related to elderly patients receiving antithrombotic therapy is still relatively limited. There are also more and more publications describing how antithrombotic therapy affects the pathogenesis of non-thrombotic diseases. Similarly, the number of reports concerning adherence to this therapy has been increasing lately. However, no review articles detailing these findings have yet been published. In actual clinical practice, antithrombotic therapy in the elderly is not a treatment strategy targeted to only one organ or disease. Rather, it requires an interdisciplinary approach aimed at maintaining the overall health of the patient. Thus, to assist physicians’ decision-making processes for elderly patients, an overview of recent findings related to the evidence regarding concomitant medications, the secondary benefits of antithrombotic therapy for patients with comorbidities, and evidence regarding medication adherence is provided.

Strategies for the Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease Complications: Can We Do Better?

Billions of dollars have been spent over the past 25 years on developing new therapies for the prevention/treatment of adverse cardiac events related to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Although some therapies have been lifesaving, several mega-randomized studies have shown only a <2% absolute reduction in adverse events with a large residual event rate. Is all this money well spent? Atherosclerosis develops decades before an adverse event, and the trials previously alluded to have nearly always been applied to secondary prevention, decades after disease initiation. Will earlier intervention result in a lower incidence of events? Individuals with an absence of the usual cardiac risk factors have a lifelong low incidence of events. Early initiation of strategies against the common cardiovascular risk factors in primary or primordial prevention will lower the incidence of adverse events, although many groups have not been well studied, including individuals younger than 40 years of age. New strategies are required to realize a radical reduction in events, and this article proposes new methods of prevention/treatment for coronary artery disease complications.

Landmark Trials in Cardiology in 2017-Celebrating 40 Years of Angioplasty

Cardiovascular (CV) diseases continue to be the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Significant progress has been made in the management of coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) over the past 3 decades. The year 2017 marks 40th anniversary of the first coronary angioplasty performed by Andreas Gruentzig in the year 1977. Evidence-based medicine and research has been the key driving force of these positive outcomes. The year 2017 witnessed presentation of several landmark studies at major meetings and many of them getting published in literature simultaneously. These trials evaluated wide range of issues from novel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies to newer drugs to innovative devices in management of CAD. We selectively discuss a few major landmark studies that have the potential to alter our daily practice in 2018.

It Must be True … I Read it in the Tabloids

Background

Previous attempts to improve the quality of health journalism have not led to more responsible reporting of health news.

Method

We reviewed the front pages of three daily tabloid and three daily broadsheet UK newspapers during a 1 month period in 2017 for medical headlines in which claims were made for diets, lifestyle behaviours or drug therapies that influence health.

Results

Front page medical headlines were carried by the Daily Express (11), Daily Mail (two), Daily Mirror (one) and Daily Telegraph (one). Neither the Guardian nor the Independent carried medical stories on their front pages during the period of study. Eleven headlines suggested benefits and three suggested harm. One headline accurately reflected its source material, but in this instance the source material was of doubtful clinical relevance. The remaining 13 headlines either exaggerated benefit (seven), exaggerated harm (two) or made false claims (four).

Conclusions

The cumulative effect of everyday misreporting of medical stories in UK newspapers may not only serve to confuse the public but also have serious consequences for public health.

A critical analysis of the COMPASS trial with respect to benefit-risk assessment using the numbers needed to treat: Applicability and relevance in Indian patients with stable cardiovascular disease

The recently published Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial evaluated the hypothesis that rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary prevention. In India, stable cardiovascular disease occurs in a much younger age group relative to the rest of the world. Our critical analysis of COMPASS trial showed that the younger age group appeared to derive greater benefit from the rivaroxaban+aspirin combination (relative to aspirin alone) as seen with number needed to treat metrics as compared to the older age group.

Estimated Life Expectancy Without Recurrent Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Vascular Disease: The SMART-REACH Model

Background In patients with vascular disease, risk models may support decision making on novel risk reducing interventions, such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or anti-inflammatory agents. We developed and validated an innovative model to estimate life expectancy without recurrent cardiovascular events for individuals with coronary, cerebrovascular, and/or peripheral artery disease that enables estimation of preventive treatment effect in lifetime gained. Methods and Results Study participants originated from prospective cohort studies: the SMART (Secondary Manifestations of Arterial Disease) cohort and REACH (Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) cohorts of 14 259 ( REACH Western Europe), 19 170 ( REACH North America) and 6959 ( SMART , The Netherlands) patients with cardiovascular disease. The SMART-REACH model to estimate life expectancy without recurrent events was developed in REACH Western Europe as a Fine and Gray competing risk model incorporating cardiovascular risk factors. Validation was performed in REACH North America and SMART . Outcomes were (1) cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death) and (2) noncardiovascular death. Predictors were sex, smoking, diabetes mellitus, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, creatinine, number of cardiovascular disease locations, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure. Calibration plots showed high agreement between estimated and observed prognosis in SMART and REACH North America. C-statistics were 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.70) in SMART and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.68) in REACH North America. Performance of the SMART-REACH model was better compared with existing risk scores and adds the possibility of estimating lifetime gained by novel therapies. Conclusions The externally validated SMART-REACH model could be used for estimation of anticipated improvements in life expectancy without recurrent cardiovascular events in individual patients with cardiovascular disease in Western Europe and North America.

The Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

Despite contemporary management, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remain at high risk for thrombotic events. Several randomized controlled trials have evaluated the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with CAD, including in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stable CAD, and in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation. Trials of apixaban and dabigatran in patients with ACS demonstrate no benefit with an increased risk of bleeding. Conversely, rivaroxaban at a reduced dose of 2.5 mg twice daily reduced thrombotic events and all-cause mortality when added to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. Similarly, the addition of low-dose rivaroxaban to acetylsalicylic acid reduced the risk of thrombotic events in patients with stable CAD. However, the addition of a DOAC to antiplatelet therapy increased the risk of major bleeding. In patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, dual-pathway or low-dose triple therapy regimens including dabigatran or rivaroxaban reduced bleeding risk compared to traditional warfarin-based triple therapy, although it remains unclear whether these regimens preserve antithrombotic efficacy. DOAC-based antithrombotic regimens prove useful in patients with CAD in various settings; however, careful selection of patients and regimens per trial protocols are critical to achieving net benefit.

Temporal trends in the management and clinical outcomes of lower extremity arterial thromboembolism within a national Veteran population

Lower extremity arterial thromboembolism is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We sought to establish temporal trends in the incidence, management and outcomes of lower extremity arterial thromboembolism within the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VAHS). We identified patients admitted to VAHS between 2003 and 2014 with a primary diagnosis of lower extremity arterial thromboembolism. Medical and procedural management were ascertained from pharmaceutical and administrative data. Subsequent rates of major adverse limb events (MALE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and mortality were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. From 2003 to 2014, there were 10,636 patients hospitalized for lower extremity thromboembolism across 140 facilities, of which 8474 patients had adequate comorbid information for analysis. Age-adjusted incidence decreased from 7.98 per 100,000 patients (95% CI: 7.28-8.75) in 2003 to 3.54 (95% CI: 3.14-3.99) in 2014. On average, the likelihood of receiving anti-platelet or anti-thrombotic therapy increased 2.3% (95% CI: 1.2-3.4%) per year during this time period and the likelihood of undergoing endovascular revascularization increased 4.0% (95% CI: 2.7-5.4%) per year. Clinical outcomes remained constant over time, with similar rates of MALE, MACE and mortality at 1 year after adjustment. In conclusion, the incidence of lower extremity arterial thromboembolism is decreasing, with increasing utilization of anti-thrombotic therapies and endovascular revascularization among those with this condition. Despite this evolution in management, patients with lower extremity thromboembolism continue to experience high rates of amputation and death within a year of the index event.

Approaches to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Selection in Practice

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) carry many advantages over warfarin and are now considered first line or an alternative for mnay thromboembolic disorders. With the emergence of 5 DOAC agents to the market as well as the accumulating evidence gathered from head-to-head comparisons between the agents, we attempt to provide direction for clinicians when selecting the most appropriate DOAC agent. Important aspects such as efficacy, safety, cost effectiveness, approved indications, and other drug-related factors will be addressed to highlight the major similarities and diversities among the DOACs. When considering the safety profile of DOACs, evidence points toward apixaban as the safest followed by dabigatran and then rivaroxaban. On the other hand, dabigatran currently has the only approved antidote, idarucizumab. According to the approved DOAC indications, rivaroxaban may be favorable in European countries given its additional indication for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction. Following rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban have the largest number of approved indications and lastly comes edoxaban and then betrixaban. For patients with renal impairment, betrixaban is the safest option, followed by apixaban and edoxaban, then rivaroxaban and lastly dabigatran. When considering DOAC dosing, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban are mainly dosed once daily compared to dabigatran and apixaban, which are dosed twice daily. However, rivaroxaban and betrixaban must be administered with food, which adds another level of complexity to the DOAC dosing. Lastly, taking into consideration drug interactions, dabigatran, edoxaban, and betrixaban have the least amount of interactions compared to apixaban and rivaroxaban. Each DOAC has its own set of features that makes it better suited than others based on the exact clinical situation. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn to the most superior DOAC based on the aspects discussed in this review.

Beyond conventional secondary prevention in coronary artery disease-what to choose in the era of CANTOS, COMPASS, FOURIER, ODYSSEY and PEGASUS-TIMI 54? A review on contemporary literature

Patients with established cardiovascular (CV) disease remain at dramatic residual risk for subsequent events, despite growing evidence in secondary prevention and wider dissemination of intensive treatment. This review focuses on new options in secondary risk prevention as presented by these five major randomized controlled trials (RCT): PEGASUS-TIMI 54, COMPASS, FOURIER, ODYSSEY and CANTOS. Three main therapeutic targets are addressed: residual cholesterol, residual inflammatory and residual thrombotic risk. All of the trials reviewed included patients with stable CV disease on optimal medical treatment with a surprising similar mortality. As of now, evolocumab, alirocumab and ticagrelor are on the market, while rivaroxaban and canakinumab are not yet licensed for the treatment of secondary prevention in CV disease. Although life-style modifications and better utilization of established medical treatment options will remain first-line strategy, new medication is just about to enter the market. Secondary prevention in coronary artery disease (CAD) holds a strong potential to reduce subsequent CV events, even CV death. It seems that a combination of an aggressive lipid-lowering treatment in combination with antithrombotic therapy could improve prognosis significantly (at least for distinct subgroups). Against this background, individual efficacy, risk, and costs have to be considered when identifying patients for each new regime.

Edoxaban in atrial fibrillation patients with established coronary artery disease: Insights from ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48

Background:

The relative efficacy and safety profile of the oral Factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and established coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been analyzed.

Materials and methods:

In the ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 trial, two edoxaban regimens were compared with warfarin in 21,105 patients with atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 ⩾2. We analyzed the primary trial endpoints (efficacy: stroke or systemic embolic event, safety: International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding) in patients with versus without CAD, and used interaction testing to assess for treatment effect modification.

Results:

The 4510 patients (21.4%) with known CAD were older, more likely male, on aspirin, with lower creatinine clearance and higher CHADS2 and HAS-BLED scores ( p <0.001 for each). Treatment with the higher-dose edoxaban regimen (versus warfarin) in patients with known CAD tended to have a greater reduction in stroke/systemic embolic event compared with patients without CAD (CAD: hazard ratio 0.65 (0.46–0.92) versus no CAD: hazard ratio 0.94 (0.79–1.12), p-INT 0.062) and also in myocardial infarction (CAD: hazard ratio 0.69 (0.49–0.98) versus no CAD: hazard ratio 1.24 (0.89–1.72), p-INT 0.017), while there was a similar reduction in bleeding irrespective of CAD status (hazard ratio 0.81 and 0.80, p-INT 0.97). Presence or absence of CAD did not modify the efficacy or safety profile of the lower-dose edoxaban regimen (versus warfarin).

Conclusion:

The reduction in ischemic events with the higher-dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin was greater in patients with CAD, while bleeding was significantly reduced with edoxaban regardless of CAD status. The efficacy and safety profile of the lower-dose edoxaban regimen relative to warfarin was unaffected by CAD status.

Rivaroxaban: searching the integral vascular protection

INTRODUCTION

Residual cardiovascular risk remains high in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease despite current antithrombotic therapy. On the other hand, patients with atrial fibrillation have an increased risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. As a result, a new antithrombotic approach appears necessary to reduce this risk. Areas covered: In this article, the role of rivaroxaban on vascular protection in patients with cardiovascular disease and/or atrial fibrillation was reviewed, with a particular focus, but not limited, on clinical trials. Expert commentary: Previous data have shown that factor Xa plays a key role in the etiopathogenesis of atherothrombosis. Experimental data suggest that rivaroxaban exhibits antiinflammatory and antioxidative stress properties, and may improve endothelial dysfunction. The COMPASS trial showed that among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, the addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (vascular dose) to aspirin provided a higher cardiovascular protection than aspirin alone. In ROCKET-AF trial, compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (15 mg if moderate renal dysfunction) (anticoagulant dose) was, at least, as effective as warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, with a trend toward a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular outcomes. All these data suggest that rivaroxaban might have a vascular protective effect beyond its stroke/systemic embolism preventive activity.

Incidence, timing, and type of first and recurrent ischemic events in patients with and without peripheral artery disease after an acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are known to have an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events. However, the influence of concomitant PAD on first and subsequent recurrent ischemic events after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains poorly characterized.

METHODS

We analyzed the combined data set from 4 randomized trials (PLATO, APPRAISE-2, TRA-CER, and TRILOGY ACS) in ACS for a follow-up length of 1 year. Using multivariable regression, we examined the association between PAD and major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Among patients with a nonfatal first event, we evaluated the incidence and type of a second recurrent event.

RESULTS

A total of 4,098 of 48,094 (8.5%) post-ACS patients had a history of PAD. The unadjusted frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2-fold higher in patients with PAD (14.3% vs 7.5%) over a median (25th-75th) follow-up of 353 (223-365) days with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% CI: 1.48-1.78; P < .001). The frequency of recurrent ischemic events among those patients with a first, nonfatal event was higher among those with PAD (40.0% vs 27.7%). The relative frequency of each event type (cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) within first and subsequent ischemic events was similar regardless of PAD status at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PAD have a significantly higher risk of first and recurrent ischemic events in the post-ACS setting. These findings highlight the opportunity for improved treatments in patients with PAD who experience an ACS.

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of risk of intracranial hemorrhage with direct oral anticoagulants

Essentials Risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) may differ between direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We compared the risk of ICH between DOACs using network meta-analysis. Dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg were safer than rivaroxaban on Bayesian analysis. Dabigatran 110 mg ranked as the safest DOAC while rivaroxaban ranked last.

SUMMARY

Background The comparative risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) among direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) remains unclear. Objective To determine the difference in risk of ICH between DOACs Methods Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Inception, 31 December 2017). Estimates were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CR.I) in Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), and OR with 95% confidence interval (CI) in traditional meta-analyses. Relative ranking probability of each group was generated based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results In NMA of 116 618 patients from 17 RCTs (apixaban = 19 495 patients, rivaroxaban = 14 157 patients, dabigatran = 16 074 patients, edoxaban = 11 652 patients, and comparator = 55 315 patients), all DOACs were safer than warfarin for risk of ICH. Dabigatran 110 mg ranked as the safest drug (SUCRA, 0.85) and reduced the risk of ICH by 56% compared to rivaroxaban (OR, 0.44; 95% Cr.I, 0.22-0.82). Pairwise meta-analysis validated these findings, showing that DOACs were safer than warfarin (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35-0.59). Subgroup analysis showed that the benefit was present when DOACs were used in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.68) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.58). Conclusion Dabigatran 110 mg may be the safest choice among any anticoagulant regarding risk of ICH. Both dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg were safer than rivaroxaban.

Rivaroxaban in the cardiovascular world: a direct anticoagulant useful to prevent stroke and venous and arterial thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Until recently, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) were the only drugs available for long-term anticoagulation. The use of these drugs is laborious due to their variable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The advent of direct oral anticoagulants has produced a paradigm shift due to their low incidence of drug interactions, their stable plasma levels, and their lack of monitoring. Rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, has been tested in different clinical scenarios and has proved to be effective and safe, even increasing the scope of the old VKA. Areas covered: A non-systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases, focusing on randomized clinical trials and real-world observational studies that evaluated rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and atherosclerotic coronary and peripheral vascular disease. Expert commentary: The role of rivaroxaban keeps expanding into areas that were unimaginable few years ago, in the light of solid evidence that has eliminated old strict paradigms. Nonetheless, it will be necessary to adjust costs and better understand the perceived barriers to its widespread implementation, to get fully acceptation of rivaroxaban for the different clinical conditions that have been suggested.