Rivaroxaban FDA review of ROCKET AF data: Difference between revisions
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
In the RELY trial, patients were rolled over into the RELIABLE study, and there was often not the opportunity to evaluate the patients for rebound. | In the RELY trial, patients were rolled over into the RELIABLE study, and there was often not the opportunity to evaluate the patients for rebound. | ||
With drug discontinuation during the trial rather than at the end of the trial, there was no excess events. | With drug discontinuation during the trial rather than at the end of the trial, there was no excess events. | ||
==Time in Therapeutic Range== | |||
Dr. Califf argued that: | |||
* TTR is not a surrogate for anticoagulation risk benefit balance. | |||
* TTR is associated with regional variations. The TTR in the US was 64%, and the treatment benefit in the US was greater than in countries with poor TTR such as in Eastern Europe. | |||
* TTR has no effect on the benefit of a novel anticoagulant over coumadin. RELY, ARISTOTLE and ROCKET AF all showed no interaction between center TTR and the benefit of a novel anticoagulant over coumadin. |
Revision as of 13:30, 8 September 2011
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]
Overview
The FDA conducted an advisory committee review regarding the approvability of rivaroxaban for reduction of stroke and systemic embolization in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation on September 8th, 2011.
Non-Inferiority Margin
An upper bound of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio was set at 1.38 by the FDA to establish non-inferiority. In no subgroup did the comparison come near the non-inferiority margin, and non-inferiority was clearly observed in all treatment subgroups and in all forms of analysis.
Primary Efficacy Endpoint
The primary efficacy endpoint was stroke and systemic embolization. The efficacy in the trial was driven by a reduction in hemorrhagic stroke and systemic embolization.
Secondary Efficacy Endpoints
There were fewer non-fatal myocardial infarctions in the Rivaroxaban group.
Safety Endpoint(s)
There were more major bleeding events in the rivaroxaban group, however, the risk of fatal bleeds (H.R.=0.61) and hemorrhagic strokes was reduced in the rivaroxaban group.
Cross Trial Comparisons
Dr. Califf emphasized that cross trial comparisons are inappropriate given the variation in design and patient risk.
Resumption of Events Following Discontinuation of Study Drug
Method of Transition at the End of the Trial
- In the rivaroxaban arm, the coumadin was started at a maintenance dose rather than using a loading dose
- There was no overlap with blinded study drug and coumading
- No INR was checked for three days
- Heparin bridging rarely used
IDMC indicated that there was no problem with the transition method. At the time the IDMC looked, there were more events in the warfarin arm. The excess number of events in the riva arm was due to an INR under 2 in the riva patients until they achieved anticoagulation. Following rug discontinuation there was a: 6.4% event rate per year in the rivaroxaban arm which is consistent with the rate in patients who are not anticoagulated 1.7 event rate per year in the coumadin arm consistent with effective coumadin therapy The efficacy of heparin bridging has not been established In the RELY trial, patients were rolled over into the RELIABLE study, and there was often not the opportunity to evaluate the patients for rebound. With drug discontinuation during the trial rather than at the end of the trial, there was no excess events.
Time in Therapeutic Range
Dr. Califf argued that:
- TTR is not a surrogate for anticoagulation risk benefit balance.
- TTR is associated with regional variations. The TTR in the US was 64%, and the treatment benefit in the US was greater than in countries with poor TTR such as in Eastern Europe.
- TTR has no effect on the benefit of a novel anticoagulant over coumadin. RELY, ARISTOTLE and ROCKET AF all showed no interaction between center TTR and the benefit of a novel anticoagulant over coumadin.