Key result
This letter questions the use of rivaroxaban as the control group in the AZALEA-TIMI 71 trial of abelacimab for atrial fibrillation, suggesting apixaban may be a more appropriate comparator.
This letter questions the choice of rivaroxaban as the control arm in the AZALEA-TIMI 71 trial, arguing that apixaban would have been a more appropriate comparator.
To the Editor: The AZALEA–TIMI 71 trial reported by Ruff et al. (Jan. 23 issue) 1 compared abelacimab with rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. A key concern is whether rivaroxaban remains the most appropriate control. Before patients enrolled in this trial, the best available evidence suggested that apixaban may offer similar or better efficacy and a lower bleeding risk than rivaroxaban. 2,3 Although one could argue that there was clinical equipoise in the absence of a definitive head-to-head comparison trial, cumulative evidence continues to point toward the superiority of apixaban. 4,5 Under these circumstances, testing abelacimab against rivaroxaban may not address the . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marc S. Sabatine (2025) conducted a letter in Atrial Fibrillation. Abelacimab vs. Rivaroxaban was evaluated. This letter questions the use of rivaroxaban as the control group in the AZALEA-TIMI 71 trial of abelacimab for atrial fibrillation, suggesting apixaban may be a more appropriate comparator.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: