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

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

An effective anticoagulation therapy is required for patients with atrial fibrillation because it presents a significant risk of stroke. The current study evaluates the relative safety as well as efficacy of rivaroxaban in patients who are diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. A thorough literature review of relevant databases was conducted, focusing on academic and clinical studies that were published from 2017 onward. Inclusion criteria comprised randomized controlled trials and other observational studies comparing the incidence of stroke and the safety index of rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for data overview reporting and overview. A total of 21 studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. A total of 19/21 studies advocated the adoption of rivaroxaban for minimizing stroke incidence. Rivaroxaban also showed superiority in achieving the therapeutic objectives, i.e., reduction in the incidence of stroke. The results for rivaroxaban against warfarin showed an improved safety index and effectiveness of rivaroxaban. The total effect size for the analysis was calculated to be Z=2.62 (p-value=0.009). The individual effect of all studies favored the "rivaroxaban" group. The heterogeneity in the study was as follows: tau2=0.10; chi2=110.10, df=6; I2=95%. The second analysis for risk reduction and incidence of stroke after rivaroxaban therapy also showed a bias towards rivaroxaban therapy. The combined effect for the analysis was found to be as follows: HR=0.73 ((95% CI: 0.50, 1.07). The total effect was calculated to be Z=1.61 (p-value= 0.10). The heterogeneity was found to be as follows: tau2= 0.20, chi2=89.97, df=6, I2=93%. Standard dosing of rivaroxaban emerges as a preferred strategy for stroke prevention, balancing efficacy and safety. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine treatment guidelines.

Efficacy and Safety of Different Dosing Regimens of Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) poses a substantial risk of stroke, necessitating effective anticoagulation therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) evaluates the efficacy and safety of different dosing regimens of rivaroxaban in patients with AF. A comprehensive search of relevant databases, focusing on studies published from 2017 onward, was conducted. Inclusion criteria comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing standard and reduced dosing of rivaroxaban in AF. Data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment were performed, and a meta-analysis was conducted for relevant outcomes. A total of 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Standard dosing demonstrates a slightly lower risk of composite effectiveness outcomes and safety outcomes (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.94, P=0.01) compared to reduced dosing (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71-0.97, P=0.02). Notable differences in major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and intracranial bleeding favored standard dosing. Hemorrhagic stroke and all-cause stroke rates differed significantly, with standard dosing showing a more favorable profile for ischemic stroke prevention. This study highlights the pivotal role of personalized anticoagulation therapy in AF. Standard dosing of rivaroxaban emerges as a preferred strategy for stroke prevention, balancing efficacy and safety. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine treatment guidelines. The study bridges evidence from clinical trials to real-world practice, offering insights into the evolving landscape of AF management.

Plasma Rivaroxaban Level in Patients With Early Stages of Chronic Kidney Disease-Relationships With Renal Function and Clinical Events

Introduction Drug accumulation of rivaroxaban is a concern in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Data regarding the plasma rivaroxaban levels in early CKD patients and its relationship with clinical events is lacking. Methods Early CKD patients (Stage 1-3) with atrial fibrillation who received rivaroxaban (15 or 20 mg daily) were recruited. Plasma rivaroxaban levels were measured at 2 hours (peak) and 24 hours (trough) after drug administration, and correlated with eGFR and clinically significant events during the follow-up period (1 January 2018 to 31 October 2021). Results Ninety-two patients were included (CKD stage 1 n=10, stage 2 n=53, stage 3 n=29). Plasma trough levels in patients with stage 3 CKD were significantly higher than those with stage 2 and 1 CKD (66.0±34.9 ng/ml vs. 35.7 ± 24.7 ng/ml vs. 34.7 ± 26.2 ng/ml, respectively, p=0.005), and showed inverse relationship with eGFR (r=0.391, p=0.001) in patients receiving 20 mg daily. The plasma trough rivaroxaban level correlated with PT and APTT (r = 0.650 and 0.44, respectively, p<0.001 for both). Plasma trough rivaroxaban level in those with bleeding were higher than those who did not (59.9 ± 35.6 ng/ml vs. 41.1 ± 29.2 ng/ml, p=0.011), and multivariate analysis suggested that plasma trough rivaroxaban level was associated with the rate of bleeding complications (OR: 1.020, 95% CI 1.002-1.038, p=0.028). Conclusion Plasma trough rivaroxaban levels correlated with renal function in early CKD patients, and its measurement may help dosage optimization in patients with renal impairment. Moreover, our data suggests that there may be an association between plasma trough rivaroxaban level and the rate of bleeding complication.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Warfarin in Latin American Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Evidence From Four post-hoc Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

Several studies have investigated the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. warfarin in Latin American patients with AF.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until November 2021 for studies that compared the effect of DOACs vs. warfarin in Latin patients with AF. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled by a random-effects model using an inverse variance method.

Results

Four post-hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 42,411 DOACs and 29,270 warfarin users were included. In Latin American patients with AF, for the effectiveness outcomes, the use of DOACs compared with warfarin was significantly associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) (HR = 0.78; 95%CI.64–0.96), stroke (HR = 0.75; 95%CI.57–0.99), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 0.14; 95%CI.05–0.36), all-cause death (HR = 0.89; 95% CI.80–1.00), but not ischemic stroke and cardiovascular death. For the safety outcomes, compared with warfarin, the use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding (HR = 0.70; 95% CI.57–0.86), major bleeding (HR = 0.70; 95%CI.53–0.92), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (HR = 0.42; 95%CI.24–0.74), or any bleeding (HR = 0.70;95% CI.62–0.78), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. In non-Latin American patients with AF, for the effectiveness outcomes, the use of DOACs compared with warfarin was significantly associated with decreased risks of SSE (HR = 0.87; 95%CI.75–1.00), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 0.41; 95%CI.28–0.60), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.87; 95% CI.81–0.94), all-cause death (HR = 0.90; 95% CI.85–0.94). Conversely, the risk of myocardial infarction increased (HR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.13–1.60), but not ischemic stroke. For the safety outcomes, compared with warfarin, the use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of major or NMCR bleeding (HR = 0.75; 95%CI.61–0.92), major bleeding (HR = 0.76; 95%CI.63–0.92), ICH (HR = 0.42; 95%CI.36–0.52), and any bleeding (HR = 0.81; 95% CI.71–0.92), but not gastrointestinal bleeding.

Conclusion

Current pooled data from the four post-hoc analyses of RCTs suggested that compared with warfarin, DOACs appeared to have significant reductions in SSE, stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, major or NMCR bleeding, major bleeding, ICH, and any bleeding, but comparable risks of ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, and gastrointestinal bleeding in Latin American patients with AF. DOACs appeared to have significant reductions in SSE, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, major or NMCR bleeding, major bleeding, ICH, and any bleeding, and increased the risk of myocardial infarction, but comparable risks of stroke, ischemic stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding in non-Latin American patients with AF.