Publication:
Relationship Between Time in Therapeutic Range and Comparative Treatment Effect of Rivaroxaban and Warfarin: Results From the ROCKET AF Trial

Thumbnail Image

Date

2014

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Piccini, J. P., A. S. Hellkamp, Y. Lokhnygina, M. R. Patel, F. E. Harrell, D. E. Singer, R. C. Becker, et al. 2014. “Relationship Between Time in Therapeutic Range and Comparative Treatment Effect of Rivaroxaban and Warfarin: Results From the ROCKET AF Trial.” Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease 3 (2): e000521. doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.113.000521.

Research Data

Abstract

Background: Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a standard quality measure of the use of warfarin. We assessed the relative effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin at the level of trial center TTR (cTTR) since such analysis preserves randomized comparisons. Methods and Results: TTR was calculated using the Rosendaal method, without exclusion of international normalized ratio (INR) values performed during warfarin initiation. Measurements during warfarin interruptions >7 days were excluded. INRs were performed via standardized finger‐stick point‐of‐care devices at least every 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint (stroke or non‐central nervous system embolism) was examined by quartiles of cTTR and by cTTR as a continuous function. Centers with the highest cTTRs by quartile had lower‐risk patients as reflected by lower CHADS2 scores (P<0.0001) and a lower prevalence of prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (P<0.0001). Sites with higher cTTR were predominantly from North America and Western Europe. The treatment effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on the primary endpoint was consistent across a wide range of cTTRs (P value for interaction=0.71). The hazard of major and non‐major clinically relevant bleeding increased with cTTR (P for interaction=0.001), however, the estimated reduction by rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the hazard of intracranial hemorrhage was preserved across a wide range of threshold cTTR values. Conclusions: The treatment effect of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is consistent regardless of cTTR.

Description

Keywords

Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, rivaroxaban, time in therapeutic range, warfarin

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories