Oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism : a pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and PE randomized studies

Background: Standard treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) consists of a heparin combined with vitamin K antagonists. Direct oral anticoagulants have been investigated for acute and extended treatment of symptomatic VTE; their use could avoid parenteral treatment and/or laboratory monitoring of anticoagulant effects. Methods: A prespecified pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE studies compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (15 mg twice-daily for 21 days, followed by 20 mg once-daily) with standard-therapy (enoxaparin 1.0 mg/kg twice-daily and warfarin or acenocoumarol). Patients were treated for 3, 6, or 12 months and followed for suspected recurrent VTE and bleeding. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 1.75. Results: 8282 patients were enrolled. 4151 received rivaroxaban and 4131 received standard-therapy. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 86 rivaroxaban-treated patients (2.1%) compared with 95 (2.3%) standard-therapy-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.19; pnoninferiority<0.001). Major bleeding was observed in 40 (1.0%) and 72 (1.7%) patients in the rivaroxaban and standard-therapy groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79; p=0.002). In key subgroups, including fragile patients, cancer patients, patients presenting with large clots and those with a history of recurrent VTE, the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban was similar compared with standard-therapy. Conclusion: The single-drug approach with rivaroxaban resulted in similar efficacy to standard-therapy and was associated with a significantly lower rate of major bleeding. Efficacy and safety results were consistent among key patient subgroups

Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices:Observations From the ROCKET AF Trial

Background: Although implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients receiving warfarin is well studied, limited data are available on the use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in this setting. Methods and Results: Using data from 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) (n=14 264), we compared baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin who did and did not undergo CIED implantation or revision. In this post‐hoc, postrandomization, on‐treatment analysis, only the first intervention per patient was analyzed. During a median follow‐up of 2.2 years, 453 patients (242 rivaroxaban group; 211 warfarin group) underwent de novo CIED implantation (64.2%) or revision procedures (35.8%). Patients who received CIEDs were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have past myocardial infarction, but had similar stroke risk compared to patients who did not receive CIEDs. Most patients who received a device had study drug interrupted for the procedure and did not receive bridging anticoagulation. During the 30‐day postprocedural period, 11 patients (4.55%) in the rivaroxaban group experienced bleeding complications compared with 15 (7.13%) in the warfarin group. Thromboembolic complications occurred in 3 patients (1.26%) in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (0.48%) in the warfarin group. Event rates were too low for formal hypothesis testing. Conclusions: Bleeding and thromboembolic events were low in both rivaroxaban‐ and warfarin‐treated patients. Periprocedural use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in CIED implantation requires further study in prospective, randomized trials. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767

Hospitalizations in patients with atrial fibrillation:an analysis from ROCKET AF

AIMS: The high costs associated with treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) are primarily due to hospital care, but there are limited data to understand the reasons for and predictors of hospitalization in patients with AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ROCKET AF trial compared rivaroxaban with warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in AF. We described the frequency of and reasons for hospitalization during study follow-up and utilized Cox proportional hazards models to assess for baseline characteristics associated with all-cause hospitalization. Of 14 171 patients, 14% were hospitalized at least once. Of 2614 total hospitalizations, 41% were cardiovascular including 4% for AF; of the remaining, 12% were for bleeding. Compared with patients not hospitalized, hospitalized patients were older (74 vs. 72 years), and more frequently had diabetes (46 vs. 39%), prior MI (23 vs. 16%), and paroxysmal AF (19 vs. 17%), but less frequently had prior transient ischaemic attack/stroke (49 vs. 56%). After multivariable adjustment, lung disease [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29–1.66], diabetes [1.22, (1.11–1.34)], prior MI [1.27, (1.13–1.42)], and renal dysfunction [HR 1.07 per 5 unit GFR < 65 mL/min, (1.04–1.10)] were associated with increased hospitalization risk. Treatment assignment was not associated with differential rates of hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Nearly 1 in 7 of the moderate-to-high-risk patients with AF enrolled in this trial was hospitalized within 2 years, and both AF and bleeding were rare causes of hospitalization. Further research is needed to determine whether care pathways directed at comorbid conditions among AF patients could reduce the need for and costs associated with hospitalization

Relationship Between Time in Therapeutic Range and Comparative Treatment Effect of Rivaroxaban and Warfarin: Results From the ROCKET AF Trial

Background: Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a standard quality measure of the use of warfarin. We assessed the relative effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin at the level of trial center TTR (cTTR) since such analysis preserves randomized comparisons. Methods and Results: TTR was calculated using the Rosendaal method, without exclusion of international normalized ratio (INR) values performed during warfarin initiation. Measurements during warfarin interruptions >7 days were excluded. INRs were performed via standardized finger‐stick point‐of‐care devices at least every 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint (stroke or non‐central nervous system embolism) was examined by quartiles of cTTR and by cTTR as a continuous function. Centers with the highest cTTRs by quartile had lower‐risk patients as reflected by lower CHADS2 scores (P<0.0001) and a lower prevalence of prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (P<0.0001). Sites with higher cTTR were predominantly from North America and Western Europe. The treatment effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on the primary endpoint was consistent across a wide range of cTTRs (P value for interaction=0.71). The hazard of major and non‐major clinically relevant bleeding increased with cTTR (P for interaction=0.001), however, the estimated reduction by rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the hazard of intracranial hemorrhage was preserved across a wide range of threshold cTTR values. Conclusions: The treatment effect of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is consistent regardless of cTTR

The role of irritability in the relation between job stressors, emotional reactivity, and counterproductive work behaviour

Researchers have stressed the importance of assessing individual differences in personality as an approach to understanding aggressive and deviant conduct across different contexts. This study investigated the moderation role of irritability, a specific aggression-related disposition, in the process of work stressors that are conducive to counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) within the stressor–emotion model. From a total sample of 1147 Italian workers (53.5% women), high- and low-irritability groups were identified. Then, using a multigroup structural equations model, we simultaneously examined all the relations in both high- and low-irritability groups, and investigated whether these relations were different between them. Results showed that job stressors elicited negative emotions that, in turn, lead to CWB. Moreover, some job stressors influenced CWB directly only in the high-irritability group. Overall, irritability moderated the relation among job stressors and CWB but not the relation among job stressors and negative emotions, with the sole exception of role conflict. As well, irritability did not moderate the relation between emotion and CWB. Thus, high-irritability employees may be more prone to react aggressively to job stressors via multiple functioning paths. The principal differences between low- and high-irritability individuals could be how they manage the impact of perceived stressors on emotions and behaviour

Rivaroxaban or Aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism

Background: although many patients with venous thromboembolism require extended treatment, it is uncertain whether it is better to use full- or lower-intensity anticoagulation therapy or aspirin. Methods: in this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, we assigned 3396 patients with venous thromboembolism to receive either once-daily rivaroxaban (at doses of 20 mg or 10 mg) or 100 mg of aspirin. All the study patients had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and were in equipoise regarding the need for continued anticoagulation. Study drugs were administered for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent fatal or nonfatal venous thromboembolism, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding. Results: a total of 3365 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (median treatment duration, 351 days). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 17 of 1107 patients (1.5%) receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban and in 13 of 1127 patients (1.2%) receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, as compared with 50 of 1131 patients (4.4%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio for 20 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.59; hazard ratio for 10 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.47; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the group receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban, 0.4% in the group receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, and 0.3% in the aspirin group; the rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.7%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all three groups. Conclusions: among patients with venous thromboembolism in equipoise for continued anticoagulation, the risk of a recurrent event was significantly lower with rivaroxaban at either a treatment dose (20 mg) or a prophylactic dose (10 mg) than with aspirin, without a significant increase in bleeding rates. (Funded by Bayer Pharmaceuticals; EINSTEIN CHOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02064439)

Social Network Analysis: Recent Achievements and Current Controversies

Network analysis has grown rapidly over the past two decades, but criticisms of the approach have increased as well This article focuses on several accomplishments and unresolved problems of the network approach In the first section. I illustrate the value of the network model in several substantive areas. focusing on studies of centrahty and power, network subgroups, and interorganizational relations I then discuss three issues over which the approach has provoked controversy the relation between network analysis and rational choice theory; the role of norms and culture, and the question of human agency I conclude with some examples of how network theorists are addressing these problemsPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68023/2/10.1177_000169939403700403.pd

Pan-Cancer Analysis of lncRNA Regulation Supports Their Targeting of Cancer Genes in Each Tumor Context

Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are commonly dys-regulated in tumors, but only a handful are known toplay pathophysiological roles in cancer. We inferredlncRNAs that dysregulate cancer pathways, onco-genes, and tumor suppressors (cancer genes) bymodeling their effects on the activity of transcriptionfactors, RNA-binding proteins, and microRNAs in5,185 TCGA tumors and 1,019 ENCODE assays.Our predictions included hundreds of candidateonco- and tumor-suppressor lncRNAs (cancerlncRNAs) whose somatic alterations account for thedysregulation of dozens of cancer genes and path-ways in each of 14 tumor contexts. To demonstrateproof of concept, we showed that perturbations tar-geting OIP5-AS1 (an inferred tumor suppressor) andTUG1 and WT1-AS (inferred onco-lncRNAs) dysre-gulated cancer genes and altered proliferation ofbreast and gynecologic cancer cells. Our analysis in-dicates that, although most lncRNAs are dysregu-lated in a tumor-specific manner, some, includingOIP5-AS1, TUG1, NEAT1, MEG3, and TSIX, synergis-tically dysregulate cancer pathways in multiple tumorcontexts

Genomic, Pathway Network, and Immunologic Features Distinguishing Squamous Carcinomas

This integrated, multiplatform PanCancer Atlas study co-mapped and identified distinguishing molecular features of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) from five sites associated with smokin