Why the study?
Does rivaroxaban provide safe and effective stroke prevention compared to vitamin K antagonists in real-world patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does rivaroxaban provide safe and effective stroke prevention compared to vitamin K antagonists in real-world patients with atrial fibrillation?
This review highlights that real-world evidence supports the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, consistent with the ROCKET-AF trial.
Supports rivaroxaban in real-world AF; extends ROCKET-AF but leaves practice change open.
Despite direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have overcome the most relevant limitations of vitamin K antagonists, many patients with atrial fibrillation are not receiving the appropriate anticoagulant therapy. In addition, when patients are anticoagulated with DOACs, some of them are not taking the dose recommended in the summary of product characteristics. This may be related, at least in part, to the concern about the applicability of findings from randomized clinical trials to real-life patients. In this context, performing studies in daily clinical practice to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs in real-world setting is mandatory. The aim of this review is to update the current evidence regarding safety of rivaroxaban in clinical practice. The Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF) showed that rivaroxaban was at least as effective as warfarin for preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with similar rates of major bleeding but with lesser risk of intracranial and fatal bleedings. Data from noninterventional studies and registries have confirmed the good results of ROCKET-AF. Even more, rates of bleeding may be inferior in real-life patients, since they have a lower risk profile than those included in ROCKET-AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sanmartı́n et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: