Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET ...AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio HR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 non-inferiority). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice. (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)
Background:Despite the well-established benefits in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), anticoagulants have been underused in elderly patients. The All Nippon AF In the Elderly ...(ANAFIE) Registry is a multicenter, prospective, observational study with 2-year follow-up of Japanese patients aged ≥75 years with a definitive diagnosis of NVAF, aiming to collect detailed information on clinical status and therapeutic challenges in this patient population.Methods and Results:Patients were enrolled from October 2016 to January 2018. A total of 32,726 patients (57.2% male) were included. The average age, CHADS2score, and creatinine clearance were 81.5±4.8 years (26.2% of patients were aged ≥85 years), 2.9±1.2, and 48.4±21.8 mL/min, respectively. Paroxysmal AF was the most common clinical AF type (42.0%), and most patients (97.2%) had comorbidities. Most patients (91.9%) were receiving anticoagulant therapy; of these, 27.8% and 72.2% were treated with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants, respectively. The average number of concomitant drugs used was 6.6±3.2, including anticoagulants.Conclusions:The ANAFIE Registry is the largest prospective registry study of elderly Japanese patients with NVAF to date. Baseline data indicate that patients in this age group are treated in a manner similar to their younger counterparts.
Polygenic risk scores suffer reduced accuracy in non-European populations, exacerbating health disparities. We propose PolyPred, a method that improves cross-population polygenic risk scores by ...combining two predictors: a new predictor that leverages functionally informed fine-mapping to estimate causal effects (instead of tagging effects), addressing linkage disequilibrium differences, and BOLT-LMM, a published predictor. When a large training sample is available in the non-European target population, we propose PolyPred
, which further incorporates the non-European training data. We applied PolyPred to 49 diseases/traits in four UK Biobank populations using UK Biobank British training data, and observed relative improvements versus BOLT-LMM ranging from +7% in south Asians to +32% in Africans, consistent with simulations. We applied PolyPred
to 23 diseases/traits in UK Biobank east Asians using both UK Biobank British and Biobank Japan training data, and observed improvements of +24% versus BOLT-LMM and +12% versus PolyPred. Summary statistics-based analogs of PolyPred and PolyPred
attained similar improvements.
Background:The short-term safety and plasma concentrations of edoxaban 15 mg once daily in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and severe renal impairment (SRI; creatinine ...clearance CLCR ≥15 to <30 ml/min) were compared with those in NVAF patients with normal renal function or mild renal impairment (normal/MiRI; CLCR≥50 ml/min) treated with edoxaban 30 or 60 mg.Methods and Results:In this Phase 3 multicenter open-label 3 parallel-group study, SRI patients received once-daily edoxaban 15 mg (n=50), whereas normal/MiRI patients were randomized to receive either once-daily edoxaban 30 or 60 mg (n=22 and 21, respectively) for 12 weeks. Plasma edoxaban concentrations and biomarkers of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis were measured. Adverse events and thromboembolic events were recorded throughout the study. Rates of any bleeding were comparable between SRI patients receiving edoxaban 15 mg (20.0%) and normal/MiRI patients receiving edoxaban 30 or 60 mg (22.7% and 23.8%, respectively). No major bleeding or thromboembolic events occurred in any treatment group. Similar plasma concentrations and biomarker profiles were observed in SRI patients receiving edoxaban 15 mg and normal/MiRI patients receiving edoxaban 30 or 60 mg.Conclusions:In this 12-week short-term study in Japanese NVAF patients with SRI, edoxaban 15 mg once daily exhibited similar safety, plasma concentration, and biomarker profiles as did the 30-mg and 60-mg doses in patients with normal/MiRI. (Circ J 2015; 79: 1486–1495)
Background:In the multinational, double-blind, double-dummy ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 phase 3 study, once-daily edoxaban was non-inferior to warfarin for prevention of stroke or systemic embolism event (SEE) ...in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of edoxaban in patients from East Asia.Methods and Results:Patients aged ≥21 years with documented AF and CHADS score ≥2 were randomized to receive once-daily edoxaban higher-dose (60 mg) or lower-dose (30 mg) regimen or warfarin dose-adjusted to an international normalized ratio of 2.0–3.0. Patients with a creatinine clearance of 30–50 ml/min, weighing ≤60 kg, or receiving strong p-glycoprotein inhibitors at randomization or during the study received a 50% dose reduction of edoxaban or matched placebo. This prespecified subanalysis included 1,943 patients from Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea. The annualized rate of stroke/SEE for higher-dose edoxaban was 1.34% vs. 2.62% for warfarin (hazard ratio HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval CI: 0.31–0.90, P=0.02) and 2.52% for lower-dose edoxaban (HR, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.63–1.54, P=0.93). Compared with warfarin (4.80%), major bleeding was significantly reduced for the higher-dose (2.86%; HR, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41–0.89, P=0.011) and lower-dose regimens (1.59%; HR, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.21–0.54, P<0.001).Conclusions:Once-daily edoxaban provided similar efficacy to warfarin while reducing major bleeding risk in the East Asian population. (Circ J 2016; 80: 860–869)
Background:The risk of bleeding and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) events associated with apixaban vs. warfarin among oral anticoagulant-naïve Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation ...(NVAF) has not been well studied in daily clinical practice.Methods and Results:Clinical data for 12,090 patients were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of patients with NVAF (aged ≥20 years, creatinine clearance CrCl ≥15 mL/min) newly initiated to apixaban or warfarin treatment between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, at 315 general practitioner clinics and 87 hospitals across Japan. After applying propensity score matching, patient characteristics were well-balanced between the apixaban and warfarin groups (4,523 patients each). The incidence rate (per 100 person-years) of major bleeding was lower in the apixaban vs. warfarin group (1.17 vs. 1.64; hazard ratio HR, 0.71; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.54–0.93; P=0.01), as was that of stroke/SE (1.14 vs. 1.73; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50–0.85; P<0.01). When patients were stratified by CrCl (≥50 mL/min and <50 mL/min), the P value for interaction was not statistically significant between subgroups (P=0.31 for major bleeding and P=0.32 for stroke/SE).Conclusions:The benefit of apixaban over warfarin for the reduction in risk of major bleeding and stroke/SE could be generalizable to daily clinical practice and to patients with reduced renal function.
Background
Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation are at higher risk of both ischemic and bleeding events compared to younger patients. In a prespecified analysis from the ENGAGE AF‐TIMI 48 trial, ...we evaluate clinical outcomes with edoxaban versus warfarin according to age.
Methods and Results
Twenty‐one thousand one‐hundred and five patients enrolled in the ENGAGE AF‐TIMI 48 trial were stratified into 3 prespecified age groups: <65 (n=5497), 65 to 74 (n=7134), and ≥75 (n=8474) years. Older patients were more likely to be female, with lower body weight and reduced creatinine clearance, leading to higher rates of edoxaban dose reduction (10%, 18%, and 41% for the 3 age groups, P<0.001). Stroke or systemic embolic event (1.1%, 1.8%, and 2.3%) and major bleeding (1.8%, 3.3%, and 4.8%) rates with warfarin increased across age groups (Ptrend<0.001 for both). There were no interactions between age group and randomized treatment in the primary efficacy and safety outcomes. In the elderly (≥75 years), the rates of stroke/systemic embolic event were similar with edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio 0.83 0.66–1.04), while major bleeding was significantly reduced with edoxaban (hazard ratio 0.83 0.70–0.99). The absolute risk difference in major bleeding (−82 events/10 000 pt‐yrs) and in intracranial hemorrhage (−73 events/10 000 pt‐yrs) both favored edoxaban over warfarin in older patients.
Conclusions
Age has a greater influence on major bleeding than thromboembolic risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. Given the higher rates of bleeding and death with increasing age, treatment of elderly patients with edoxaban provides an even greater absolute reduction in safety events over warfarin, compared to treatment with edoxaban versus warfarin in younger patients.
Clinical Trial Registration
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00781391.
Summary Background The antiplatelet drug cilostazol is efficacious for prevention of stroke recurrence compared with placebo. We designed the second Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study (CSPS 2) to ...establish non-inferiority of cilostazol versus aspirin for prevention of stroke, and to compare the efficacy and safety of cilostazol and aspirin in patients with non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke. Methods Patients aged 20–79 years who had had a cerebral infarction within the previous 26 weeks were enrolled at 278 sites in Japan and allocated to receive 100 mg cilostazol twice daily or 81 mg aspirin once daily for 1–5 years. Patients were allocated according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence by means of a dynamic balancing method using patient information obtained at registration. All patients, study personnel, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of stroke (cerebral infarction, cerebral haemorrhage, or subarachnoid haemorrhage). The predefined margin of non-inferiority was an upper 95% CI limit for the hazard ratio of 1·33. Analyses were by full-analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00234065. Findings Between December, 2003, and October, 2006, 2757 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive cilostazol (n=1379) or aspirin (n=1378), of whom 1337 on cilostazol and 1335 on aspirin were included in analyses; mean follow-up was 29 months (SD 16). The primary endpoint occurred at yearly rates of 2·76% (n=82) in the cilostazol group and 3·71% (n=119) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio 0·743, 95% CI 0·564–0·981; p=0·0357). Haemorrhagic events (cerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage, or haemorrhage requiring hospital admission) occurred in fewer patients on cilostazol (0·77%, n=23) than on aspirin (1·78%, n=57; 0·458, 0·296–0·711; p=0·0004), but headache, diarrhoea, palpitation, dizziness, and tachycardia were more frequent in the cilostazol group than in the aspirin group. Interpretation Cilostazol seems to be non-inferior, and might be superior, to aspirin for prevention of stroke after an ischaemic stroke, and was associated with fewer haemorrhagic events. Therefore, cilostazol could be used for prevention of stroke in patients with non-cardioembolic stroke. Funding Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
Background: Edoxaban is a once-daily (QD) oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor in clinical development for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The aim of ...this study was to evaluate the safety of edoxaban in Japanese patients with NVAF. Methods and Results: A total of 536 NVAF patients (CHADS2 ≥1) were randomized to receive double-blinded edoxaban 30, 45, or 60mg QD or open-label warfarin (international normalized ratio INR 2.0-3.0 for age <70 years; 1.6-2.6 for age ≥70 years) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of all bleeding events (major, clinically relevant non-major, and minor bleeds). Patients underwent CT and/or MRI to assess asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Secondary endpoints included thromboembolic events and pharmacodynamic indices. The mean incidence of all bleeding events for edoxaban 30, 45, and 60mg, and warfarin was 18.5%, 22.4%, 27.7%, and 20.0%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences among the edoxaban groups and no significant differences from the warfarin group. There were no asymptomatic ICH events in any group. One episode of cerebral infarction was observed in the edoxaban 45-mg group. Subgroup analysis suggested low body weight (≤60kg) was associated with higher bleeding risk. Conclusions: Edoxaban 30, 45, and 60mg QD in patients with NVAF was associated with a numerical increase in all bleeding across the dose range, but this was not statistically significant, nor was any dose compared with warfarin. (Circ J 2012; 76: 1840–1847)
PDF
