1 / 37

I nuovi anticoagulanti orali ed il dilemma delle copatologie

I nuovi anticoagulanti orali ed il dilemma delle copatologie. Bruno Trimarco Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”. New Oral Anticoagulants. Pathophysiology of thrombosis in heart failure. Adapted from Weitz J. J Thromb Haemost 2005.

anorberto
Download Presentation

I nuovi anticoagulanti orali ed il dilemma delle copatologie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. I nuovi anticoagulanti orali ed il dilemma delle copatologie Bruno Trimarco Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”

  2. New Oral Anticoagulants Pathophysiology of thrombosis in heart failure. Adapted from Weitz J. J Thromb Haemost 2005

  3. -New Oral Anticoagulants- An Overview Adapted from Piccini et al. Curr Opin Cardiol 2010

  4. -New Oral Anticoagulants- Stroke and Systemic emboli

  5. -New Oral Anticoagulants- Intracranial Hemorrhage

  6. Study Design • Risk Factors • Stroke, TIA or Systemic embolus • OR • CHF • Hypertension • Age  75 • Diabetes Atrial Fibrillation At least 2 or 3 required* Rivaroxaban Warfarin Randomized Double Blind / Double Dummy (n ~ 14,000) 20 mg daily 15 mg for Cr Cl 30-49 ml/min INR target - 2.5 (2.0-3.0 inclusive) Monthly Monitoring Adherence to standard of care guidelines Primary Endpoint: Stroke or non-CNS Systemic Embolism * Enrollment of patients without prior Stroke, TIA or systemic embolism and only 2 factors capped at 10%

  7. Pathophysiology of thrombosis in heart failure. Pathophysiology of thrombosis in heart failure Lip G Y et al. Eur J Heart Fail 2012;14:681-695

  8. Anticoagulants in heart failure The beginning

  9. Anticoagulants in heart failure in the New Millennium

  10. Methods - Definitions • HF was defined as a history of HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% • Pre-specified secondary HF sub-group analyses • LVEF ≥40% vs. <40% • New York Heart Association (NHYA) class • CHADS2 score • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or biventricular-ICD (BiV-ICD)

  11. Methods - Outcomes • Efficacy endpoints (intention-to-treat population) • Primary: Stroke or systemic embolism • Secondary • All-cause death • Stroke, systemic embolism, or vascular death • Safety endpoints (safety population) • Primary : Major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding • Secondary • Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) • Hemorrhagic stroke *All outcomes reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HR) per 100 patient-years (pt-yrs)

  12. Results – HF vs. No HF • 9033 (63.7%) of patients were defined as having HF

  13. Results - HF vs. No HF

  14. Results – HF Status and Treatment Assignment

  15. Results – HF Subgroups

  16. Results – Heart Failure Subgroups

  17. Available now online from European Heart Journal http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ehr342

  18. Baseline demographics ASA, acetylsalicylic acid; IQR, interquartile range; VKA, vitamin K antagonist Safety population (minus 9 pts in warfarin arm with no CrCl data)

  19. Baseline demographics (continued) SD, standard deviation; TIA, transient ischaemic attack Safety population (minus 9 pts in warfarin arm with no CrCl data)

  20. ROCKET AF: stroke or non-CNS embolism among patients with CrCl 30–49 ml/min Warfarin Rivaroxaban Cumulative event rate (%) HR (95% CI): 0.84 (0.57, 1.23) Days since randomization No. at risk: Rivaroxaban 1,434 1,226 1,103 1,027 806 621 442 275 Warfarin 1,439 1,261 1,140 1,052 832 656 455 272 Event rates are % per year; Based on Protocol Compliant on Treatment Population Fox KA et al.Eur Heart J 2011; 32 (19): 2387-2394

  21. 6 5 4 Cumulative event rate (%) 3 2 1 0 0 120 240 480 600 720 840 360 ROCKET AF: Primary efficacy endpoint: stroke or non-CNS embolism patients with CrCl 30–49 ml/min vs. ROCKET AF overall Warfarin, renally impaired*,1 Rivaroxabanrenally impaired*,1 Warfarin, overall**,2 Rivaroxaban overall**,2 * among patients with CrCl 30-49 ml/min:HR 0.84 (95% CI: 0.57-1.23) ** HR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.96) p<0.001 (non-inferiority) Days since randomization Per-protocol population on-treatment 1Fox KA et al.Eur Heart J 2011; 32 (19): 2387-2394; 2Patel MR et al. N Engl J Med 2011;365:883–891

  22. Safety outcomes CrCl ≥50 ml/min†CrCl 30–49 ml/min‡ 0.01 0.1 1 10 Based on safety population on treatment *Composite of major plus non-major clinically relevant bleeding. †Rivaroxaban 20 mg od. ‡Rivaroxaban 15 mg od

  23. Bleeding sites † p=0.02 (riva vs. warf in CrCl 30–49 ml/min); p=0.0002 (riva vs. warf in CrCl ≥50 ml/min) ‡ p=0.02 (riva vs. warf in CrCl ≥50 ml/min)

  24. ROCKET AF – PREVENZIONE SECONDARIA

  25. Secondary prevention cohortkey demographics *‘Prior stroke’ includes TIA, ischaemic stroke, stroke of unknown type, and haemorrhagic stroke. #Mean±SD. IQR, interquartile range; TTR, time in therapeutic INR range

  26. Results: Primary efficacy endpoint Kaplan–Meier survival curve showing time to the primary endpoint (stroke or systemic embolism) 7 Prior stroke/TIA, warfarin 6 Prior stroke/TIA, rivaroxaban 5 No prior stroke/TIA, warfarin 4 Cumulative event rate – stroke or systemic embolism (%) 3 No prior stroke/TIA, rivaroxaban 2 1 0 0 6 12 18 24 30 Months from randomization Per protocol population, on-treatment

  27. Results: Efficacy analysis No prior stroke or TIA Prior stroke or TIA Per protocol population, on-treatment

  28. Results: Principal safety outcome Safety population, on-treatment †Principal safety outcome No prior stroke or TIA Prior stroke or TIA

  29. ROCKET AF – subanalysis elderly patients - Rationale • To determine the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin among elderly patients (>75 years old) with AF compared with patients <75 years • 6,229 patients were ≥75 years • Mean CHADS2 3.7 vs 3.3 • Female 46% vs. 35% • Prior stroke/TIA 42% vs 65% Halperin JL et al. presentedat AHA 2012

  30. ROCKET AF - subanalysis elderly patients - Results Major Bleeding (n=14.236) Stroke/SE (n=14.171) Age (Years) <75 ≥75 HR 0.95 (0.76-1.19) HR 0.80 (0.63-1.02) p*=0.31 HR 0.96 (0.78-1.19) HR 1.11 (0.92-1.34) p*=0.34 Rivaroxaban better Warfarin better Rivaroxaban better Warfarin better * p-value for interaction Halperin JL et al. presented at AHA 2012

  31. ROCKET AF - subanalysis elderly patients - Results R=rivaroxaban; W=warfarin; *p-value for interaction; ICH=intracerebral haemorrhage; CRNMB=clinically relevant non-major bleeding 1ITT population, 2 safety population excluding a GCP violating site, 3safety population Halperin JL et al. presented at AHA 2012

  32. ROCKET AF - subanalysis elderly patients - Results R=rivaroxaban; W=warfarin; *p-value for interaction; ICH=intracerebral haemorrhage; CRNMB=clinically relevant non-major bleeding 1ITT population, 2 safety population excluding a GCP violating site, 3safety population Halperin JL et al. presented at AHA 2012

More Related