Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, United States.
Terrence Donnelly Heart Centre, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Apr 15;257:78-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.06.110.
The aim of this study was to determine the net clinical benefit (NCB) of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.
This was a retrospective analysis of 14,236 patients included in ROCKET AF who received at least one dose of study drug. We analyzed NCB using four different methods: (1) composite of death, stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding; (2) method 1 with fatal or critical organ bleeding substituted for major bleeding; (3) difference between the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism minus 1.5 times the difference between the rate of intracranial hemorrhage; and (4) weighted sum of differences between rates of death, ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, and major bleeding.
Rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism (rate difference per 10,000 patient-years [RD]=-86.8 [95% CI -143.6 to -30.0]) and fatal or critical organ bleeding (-41.3 [-68 to -14.7]). However, rivaroxaban was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding other than fatal or critical organ bleeding (55.9 [14.7 to 97.2]). Method 1 showed no difference between treatments (-35.5 [-108.4 to 37.3]). Methods 2-4 favored treatment with rivaroxaban (2: -96.8 [-157.0 to -36.8]; 3: -65.2 [-112.3 to -17.8]; 4: -54.8 [-96.0 to -10.2]).
Rivaroxaban was associated with favorable NCB compared with warfarin. The NCB was attributable to lower rates of ischemic events and fatal or critical organ bleeding.
本研究旨在确定与华法林相比,利伐沙班在房颤患者中的净临床获益(NCB)。
这是对 ROCKET AF 中纳入的至少接受一剂研究药物的 14236 名患者进行的回顾性分析。我们使用四种不同的方法分析 NCB:(1)死亡、中风、全身性栓塞、心肌梗死和大出血的综合结果;(2)用致命或关键器官出血替代大出血的方法 1;(3)缺血性中风或全身性栓塞率与颅内出血率之差减去 1.5 倍;(4)死亡率、缺血性中风或全身性栓塞、颅内出血和大出血率之间的差异的加权和。
利伐沙班与死亡、心肌梗死、中风或全身性栓塞(每 10000 患者年的发生率差异[RD]=-86.8[95%CI-143.6 至-30.0])和致命或关键器官出血(-41.3[-68 至-14.7])的复合结局风险降低相关。然而,利伐沙班与除致命或关键器官出血外的大出血风险增加相关(55.9[14.7 至 97.2])。方法 1 显示两种治疗方法之间无差异(-35.5[-108.4 至 37.3])。方法 2-4 更倾向于利伐沙班治疗(2:-96.8[-157.0 至-36.8];3:-65.2[-112.3 至-17.8];4:-54.8[-96.0 至-10.2])。
与华法林相比,利伐沙班与有利的 NCB 相关。NCB 归因于缺血事件和致命或关键器官出血发生率较低。