Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with stable cardiovascular disease, those receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin had fewer major cardiovascular events but more major bleeding events than those receiving aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban alone did not result in fewer major cardiovascular events than aspirin alone.

Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin reduced major cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone in patients with cardiovascular disease although effects on total events are unknown. The COMPASS clinical trial randomized 27,395 participants with chronic coronary and/or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg daily. We analyzed total (first and recurrent) MACE outcomes of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome of major bleeding. Exploratory analyses included on-treatment and net clinical benefit. Total MACE and safety events were modeled for each treatment. MACE events were lowest in rivaroxaban with aspirin (379 first MACE, 432 total MACE) compared with rivaroxaban (448 first, 508 total) or aspirin alone (496 first, 574 total). Rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced total MACE events compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.85, P < .0001, number needed to treat for 2 years (NNT2y) of 63]. Total major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban with aspirin compared to aspirin, but severe bleeding was not increased. The net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was 20% higher compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.80 (95% CI 16.3%-31.6%)]. Rivaroxaban alone had no benefit on MACE outcomes compared with aspirin alone. MACE outcomes were similar for those on and off randomized treatment. Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin significantly reduces first and total cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone with a NNT2y of 63 and a 20% net clinical benefit. NCT01776424. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01776424

Aims To estimate the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), expanded MACE, and MACE or Death across Fibrosis- 4 score (FIB-4) categories in people with type 2 diabetes and to determine whether efpeglenatide’s effect varies with increasing FIB-4 severity. Materials and methods AMPLITUDE-O trial data were used to estimate the relationship of FIB-4 score categories to the hazard of MACE, expanded MACE, and MACE or death. Interactions on these outcomes between baseline FIB-4 score, and between FIB-4 score and efpeglenatide were also assessed. Results Baseline FIB-4 score was available for 4059 participants (99.6%) allowing subdivision of the population in tertiles. During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, numerical increases in the incidence of all 3 outcomes did not change significantly across tertiles of FIB-4 score (P for trend ≥ 0.25) with negligible relationship of the score to incident outcomes (MACE HR, per 1 SD higher score, 95% CI: 1.00, 0.89–1.13). Efpeglenatide’s effect on all MACE outcomes did not vary across FIB-4 tertiles (all interaction p values ≥ 0.64). Conclusions In high-risk people with type 2 diabetes, the degree of liver fibrosis, as estimated by FIB-4 score, was not related to incident cardiovascular outcomes. The beneficial effect of efpeglenatide on these outcomes is independent of FIB-4 category.

Background Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. Methods US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. Results The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. Conclusion Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier : NCT01776424.

Abstract Aims To describe outcomes of patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) randomized trial who were treated with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily during long-term open-label extension (LTOLE). Methods and results Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1–1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11–2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65–2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50–0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86–1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86–1.19) and 2.49 (2.24–2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48–1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77–5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination. Conclusion In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.

Abstract Aims The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial. Methods and results We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs. Conclusion Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany. (COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424)

In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, there was a significant reduction in the adjudicated primary outcome among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease randomized to dual pathway inhibition (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily) vs aspirin monotherapy, but not with rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin monotherapy. Whether the results are similar without adjudication is unknown. To examine the impact of dual pathway inhibition (with rivaroxaban plus aspirin) or rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy on investigator-reported CV events and to understand the extent of concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated clinical events. This is a secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial, an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial with a 3-by-2 partial factorial design that evaluated participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban monotherapy, or aspirin monotherapy. End points were collected by blinded site investigators and adjudicated by a blinded clinical end point committee. Data were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2017. Participants received dual inhibition pathway (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily), rivaroxaban monotherapy (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin monotherapy (100 mg once daily). The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). Adjudicated and investigator-reported end points were compared. A total of 27 395 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.9] years; 78.0% men) were assessed, including 9152 patients randomized to dual pathway inhibition, 9117 patients randomized to rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 9126 patients randomized to aspirin monotherapy. Adjudication reduced the number of events by 10% to 15% for most end points. Among investigator-reported end points, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced the rate of the primary efficacy outcome compared with aspirin alone (411 patients [4.5%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.85]; P < .001), with similar reduction in adjudicated end points, (379 patients [4.1%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P < .001). Likewise, effects on ischemic end points were highly concordant (κ statistic = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95] for the primary composite end point). Unlike with adjudicated outcomes, there was a significant reduction in the primary end point with rivaroxaban monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy using investigator-reported events (477 patients [5.2%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; P = .04) compared with adjudicated events (448 patients [4.9%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .12). This secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial found that whether assessed by blinded site investigators or adjudicators, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced CV events among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease compared with aspirin plus placebo. These findings suggest that using investigator-reported events in blinded clinical trials may be a more efficient alternative to adjudication. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424.