Suppr超能文献

口服利伐沙班对比标准抗凝治疗有症状的深静脉血栓形成的安全性和有效性(XALIA):一项国际前瞻性非干预性研究。

Safety and effectiveness of oral rivaroxaban versus standard anticoagulation for the treatment of symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (XALIA): an international, prospective, non-interventional study.

作者信息

Ageno Walter, Mantovani Lorenzo G, Haas Sylvia, Kreutz Reinhold, Monje Danja, Schneider Jonas, van Eickels Martin, Gebel Martin, Zell Elizabeth, Turpie Alexander G G

机构信息

Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.

CESP-Center for Public Health Research, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Lancet Haematol. 2016 Jan;3(1):e12-21. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00257-4. Epub 2015 Dec 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban for the treatment and secondary prevention of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism has been shown in phase 3 trials. However, data about rivaroxaban use in routine clinical practice are needed.

METHODS

XA inhibition with rivaroxaban for Long-term and Initial Anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism (XALIA) was a multicentre, international, prospective, non-interventional study of patients with deep-vein thrombosis, done in hospitals and community care centres in 21 countries. The study investigated the safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with standard anticoagulation therapy (initial treatment with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or fondaparinux, usually overlapping with and followed by a vitamin K antagonist) for at least 3 months. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with an objectively confirmed diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis, and an indication to receive anticoagulation treatment for at least 3 months. Following approval of rivaroxaban for the pulmonary embolism indication, patients with deep-vein thrombosis and concomitant pulmonary embolism were also eligible; however, those with isolated pulmonary embolism were not included. Type, dose, and duration of therapy for each patient were at the physician's discretion. The primary effectiveness and safety outcomes were major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality. Propensity score-adjusted analyses were done to account for potential imbalances between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01619007.

FINDINGS

Between June 26, 2012, and March 31, 2014, 5142 patients were enrolled. The safety population (all patients who received at least one dose of the anticoagulant of interest) comprised 2619 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 2149 in the standard anticoagulant therapy group. Patients in the rivaroxaban group were younger and fewer had active cancer or concomitant pulmonary embolism than those in the standard anticoagulation group. In the propensity score-adjusted population, the frequency of major bleeding was 0·8% (19/2505) in the rivaroxaban group and 2·1% (43/2010) in the standard anticoagulation group, with a propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·77 (95% CI 0·40-1·50); p=0·44. The frequency of recurrent venous thromboembolism was 1·4% (36/2505) in the rivaroxaban group and 2·3% (47/2010) in the standard anticoagulation group (propensity score-adjusted HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·54-1·54], p=0·72). The all-cause mortality frequency was 0·4% (11/2505) in the rivaroxaban group and 3·4% (69/2010) in the standard anticoagulation group (propensity score-adjusted HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·24-1·07], p=0·074). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events in the safety population was similar between the two groups (944 [36·0%] of 2619 in the rivaroxaban group vs 805 [37·5%] of 2149 in the standard anticoagulation group).

INTERPRETATION

In routine clinical practice, rivaroxaban-treated patients had a lower risk profile at baseline than those treated with standard anticoagulation. Propensity score-adjusted results confirm that rivaroxaban is a safe and effective alternative to standard anticoagulation therapy in a broad range of patients. Rates of major bleeding and recurrent venous thromboembolism were low in rivaroxaban-treated patients and consistent with phase 3 findings.

FUNDING

Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

摘要

背景

3期试验已证实抗凝药利伐沙班用于治疗及二级预防深静脉血栓形成和肺栓塞的有效性及安全性。然而,仍需要利伐沙班在常规临床实践中应用的数据。

方法

利伐沙班用于静脉血栓栓塞症长期及初始抗凝治疗的Xa因子抑制作用(XALIA)研究是一项在21个国家的医院和社区护理中心开展的针对深静脉血栓形成患者的多中心、国际性、前瞻性、非干预性研究。该研究调查了利伐沙班与标准抗凝治疗(初始用普通肝素、低分子肝素或磺达肝癸钠治疗,通常与维生素K拮抗剂重叠使用并在其后使用)相比至少3个月的安全性和有效性。符合条件的患者为年龄≥18岁、经客观确诊为深静脉血栓形成且有指征接受至少3个月抗凝治疗的成年人。在利伐沙班获批用于肺栓塞适应证后,合并肺栓塞的深静脉血栓形成患者也符合条件;但孤立性肺栓塞患者未纳入。每位患者的治疗类型、剂量和疗程由医生自行决定。主要有效性和安全性结局为大出血、复发性静脉血栓栓塞症和全因死亡率。进行倾向评分调整分析以解释组间潜在的不均衡性。本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,编号为NCT01619007。

结果

2012年6月26日至2014年3月31日期间,共纳入5142例患者。安全性人群(所有接受至少一剂研究抗凝药的患者)包括利伐沙班组2619例患者和标准抗凝治疗组2149例患者。利伐沙班组患者比标准抗凝治疗组患者更年轻,患有活动性癌症或合并肺栓塞的患者更少。在倾向评分调整人群中,利伐沙班组大出血发生率为0.8%(19/2505),标准抗凝治疗组为2.1%(43/2010),倾向评分调整后的风险比(HR)为0.77(95%CI 0.40 - 1.50);p = 0.44。利伐沙班组复发性静脉血栓栓塞症发生率为1.4%(36/2505),标准抗凝治疗组为2.3%(47/2010)(倾向评分调整后的HR 0.91 [95%CI 0.54 - 1.54],p = 0.72)。利伐沙班组全因死亡率为0.4%(11/2505),标准抗凝治疗组为3.4%(69/2010)(倾向评分调整后的HR 0.51 [95%CI 0.24 - 1.07],p = 0.074)。安全性人群中治疗期间出现的不良事件发生率在两组间相似(利伐沙班组2619例中的944例[36.0%] vs 标准抗凝治疗组2149例中的805例[37.5%])。

解读

在常规临床实践中,接受利伐沙班治疗的患者基线风险状况低于接受标准抗凝治疗的患者。倾向评分调整结果证实,在广泛的患者群体中,利伐沙班是标准抗凝治疗的一种安全有效的替代药物。接受利伐沙班治疗的患者大出血和复发性静脉血栓栓塞症发生率较低,与3期试验结果一致。

资助

拜耳医药保健有限公司和杨森研发有限责任公司。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验