Rivaroxaban is an effective and safe alternative to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. We tested the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in high-risk patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome. This is a randomized open-label multicenter noninferiority study with blinded end point adjudication. Rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg once daily based on kidney function) was compared with warfarin (international normalized ratio target 2.5) for the prevention of thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and vascular death in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Only high-risk patients triple positive for lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin, and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies of the same isotype (triple positivity) were included in the study. The trial was terminated prematurely after the enrollment of 120 patients (59 randomized to rivaroxaban and 61 to warfarin) because of an excess of events among patients in the rivaroxaban arm. Mean follow-up was 569 days. There were 11 (19%) events in the rivaroxaban group, and 2 (3%) events in the warfarin group. Thromboembolic events occurred in 7 (12%) patients randomized to rivaroxaban (4 ischemic stroke and 3 myocardial infarction), whereas no event was recorded in those randomized to warfarin. Major bleeding occurred in 6 patients: 4 (7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 2 (3%) in the warfarin group. No death was reported. The use of rivaroxaban in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome was associated with an increased rate of events compared with warfarin, thus showing no benefit and excess risk. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02157272.

Summary. Background: The characteristics and the clinical course of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in high-risk patients that are positive for all three recommended tests that detect the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies have not been described. Methods: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data examined patients referred to Italian Thrombosis Centers that were diagnosed with definite APS and tested positive for aPL [lupus anticoagulant (LA), anti-cardiolipin (aCL), and anti-b2-glycoprotein I (b2GPI) antibodies]. Laboratory data were confirmed in a central reference laboratory. Results: One hundred and sixty patients were enrolled in this cohort study. The qualifying events at diagnosis were venous thromboembolism (76 cases; 47.5%), arterial thromboembolism (69 cases; 43.1%) and pregnancy morbidity (11 cases; 9.7%). The remaining four patients (2.5%) suffered from catastrophic APS. The cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events in the follow-up period was 12.2% (95%CI, 9.6-14.8) after 1 year, 26.1% (95%CI, 22.3-29.9) after 5 years and 44.2% (95%CI, 38.6-49.8) after 10 years. This was significantly higher in those patients not taking oral anticoagulants as compared with those on treatment (HR=2.4 95%CI 1.3-4.1; P < 0.003). Major bleeding associated with oral anticoagulant therapy was low (0.8% patient/years). Ten patients died (seven were cardiovascular deaths). Conclusions: Patients with APS and triple positivity for aPL are at high risk of developing future thromboembolic events. Recurrence remains frequent despite the use of oral anticoagulants, which significantly reduces the risk of thromboembolism.

No abstract

SummaryThe aims of this study were to investigate on the general adhesion of the patients to oral anticoagulant therapy, and particularly on the quality of life of our patients, the doctor-patient relationship and the Centre-patient relationship. For this purpose we administered a questionnaire containing 17 main questions each with a maximum of 4 secondary questions. The questionnaire was administered to two groups of 127 and 137 oral anticoagulated patients (127 males and 137 females, mean age 55 ± 19 years), followed at two Anticoagulation Clinics, in two Italian cities, Cagliari (Sardinia) and Padua (North East Italy). The cities differed in the number of patients monitored and the management modalities of anticoagulation. The results show that oral anticoagulant therapy does not limit the life-style of the patients. Only 11% of the patients complain of limitations to their daily life. Fifty-two percent believe their health has improved, and 87% are not afraid of negative consequences. The doctor-patient relationship is considered very important by 96% of patients. Seventy-eight percent refer to the Anticoagulation Clinic also for other health problems, 93% consider it important to be assessed by the doctor at the Anticoagulation Clinic, while 83% believe the doctor should always hand out the results personally. We conclude that in general oral anticoagulant therapy is accepted by the majority of patients, in spite of the need for periodic monitoring. The doctor-patient relationship should be taken into account, even in the case of a monitored, computer-assisted method of dose-adjustment.

SummaryWarfarin is employed more frequently than acenocoumarol because of its longer half-life (36 h), theoretically providing more stable anticoagulation, and avoiding factor VII fluctuations that potentially occur during acenocoumarol treatment (half-life 10 h).The aim of our study was to compare acenocoumarol with warfarin in the same group of 103 patients who started oral anticoagulation with acenocoumarol and then changed to warfarin. In these patients we compared the previous period of six months on acenocoumarol treatment (July-December 1996) with a new six-month period on warfarin (July-December 1997). We wished to know whether warfarin could improve the quality and the stability of oral anticoagulation of our patients and whether there was a difference between the two drugs in the weekly mean dose per patient. Moreover in order to detect the possible daily fluctuation of factor VII, we evaluated a further group of 54 patients. A subgroup of these patients was treated with warfarin while another received acenocoumarol.In the first group of patients, 1,158 and 1,064 PTs were carried out with acenocoumarol and warfarin, respectively. The percentage of PTs in the therapeutic range was 59% with acenocoumarol and 62% with warfarin (p = 0.4). The mean number of visits per patient was 12 and 11, and the mean number of visits in the therapeutic range was 7 and 7, respectively. The last check in file method did not show any difference between the two drugs. Overdose states were 51 (4.4%) with acenocoumarol and 30 (2.8%) with warfarin (p = 0.4). A good correlation (r = 0.92) was found between the acenocoumarol and the warfarin weekly mean dose. The mean warfarin/acenocoumarol weekly dose ratio was 2.08 (range: 1.25-3.30; CI 95%: 1.99-2.16).In the second group of patients, factor VII levels with both drugs were higher 24 h after administration than 16 h after, showing that their daily fluctuation was independent of the drug’s half-life, since factor VII levels in patients with a low vitamin K intake were not increased.Our results showed that warfarin did not appear to be better than acenocoumarol in the performance of an Anticoagulation Clinic in terms of PTs within the therapeutic range per patient. It seems that the behaviour of factor VII was affected by the intake of vitamin K rather than by the short half-life of acenocoumarol.