SummaryBackgroundRivaroxaban is established for the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism, but whether it is useful in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome is uncertain.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2/3, non-inferiority trial, done in two UK hospitals, included patients with antiphospholipid syndrome who were taking warfarin for previous venous thromboembolism, with a target international normalised ratio of 2·5. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue with warfarin or receive 20 mg oral rivaroxaban daily. Randomisation was done centrally, stratified by centre and patient type (with vs without systemic lupus erythematosus). The primary outcome was percentage change in endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) from randomisation to day 42, with non-inferiority set at less than 20% difference from warfarin in mean percentage change. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. Other thrombin generation parameters, thrombosis, and bleeding were also assessed. Treatment effect was measured as the ratio of rivaroxaban to warfarin for thrombin generation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68222801.FindingsOf 116 patients randomised between June 5, 2013, and Nov 11, 2014, 54 who received rivaroxaban and 56 who received warfarin were assessed. At day 42, ETP was higher in the rivaroxaban than in the warfarin group (geometric mean 1086 nmol/L per min, 95% CI 957–1233 vs 548, 484–621, treatment effect 2·0, 95% CI 1·7–2·4, p<0·0001). Peak thrombin generation was lower in the rivaroxaban group (56 nmol/L, 95% CI 47–66 vs 86 nmol/L, 72–102, treatment effect 0·6, 95% CI 0·5–0·8, p=0·0006). No thrombosis or major bleeding were seen. Serious adverse events occurred in four patients in each group.InterpretationETP for rivaroxaban did not reach the non-inferiority threshold, but as there was no increase in thrombotic risk compared with standard-intensity warfarin, this drug could be an effective and safe alternative in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and previous venous thromboembolism.FundingArthritis Research UK, Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, LUPUS UK, Bayer, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Background and objectives The calcimimetic cinacalcet reduced the risk of death or cardiovascular (CV) events in older, but not younger, patients with moderate to severe secondary hyperparathyroidism (HPT) who were receiving hemodialysis. To determine whether the lower risk in younger patients might be due to lower baseline CV risk and more frequent use of cointerventions that reduce parathyroid hormone (kidney transplantation, parathyroidectomy, and commercial cinacalcet use), this study examined the effects of cinacalcet in older ($65 years, n=1005) and younger (,65 years, n=2878) patients.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Evaluation of Cinacalcet HCl Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events (EVOLVE) was a global, multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled trial in 3883 prevalent patients on hemodialysis, whose outcomes included death, major CV events, and development of severe unremitting HPT. The age subgroup analysis was prespecified.Results Older patients had higher baseline prevalence of diabetes mellitus and CV comorbidity. Annualized rates of kidney transplantation and parathyroidectomy were .3-fold higher in younger relative to older patients and were more frequent in patients randomized to placebo. In older patients, the adjusted relative hazard (95% confidence interval) for the primary composite (CV) end point (cinacalcet versus placebo) was 0.70 (0.60 to 0.81); in younger patients, the relative hazard was 0.97 (0.86 to 1.09). Corresponding adjusted relative hazards for mortality were 0.68 (0.51 to 0.81) and 0.99 (0.86 to 1.13). Reduction in the risk of severe unremitting HPT was similar in both groups. ConclusionsIn the EVOLVE trial, cinacalcet decreased the risk of death and of major CV events in older, but not younger, patients with moderate to severe HPT who were receiving hemodialysis. Effect modification by age may be partly explained by differences in underlying CV risk and differential application of cointerventions that reduce parathyroid hormone.

BackgroundCrohn’s disease (CD) is a lifelong, relapsing and remitting inflammatory condition of the intestine. Medical imaging is crucial for diagnosis, phenotyping, activity assessment and detecting complications. Diverse small bowel imaging tests are available but a standard algorithm for deployment is lacking. Many hospitals employ tests that impart ionising radiation, of particular concern to this young patient population. Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and small bowel ultrasound (USS) are attractive options, as they do not use ionising radiation. However, their comparative diagnostic accuracy has not been compared in large head to head trials. METRIC aims to compare the diagnostic efficacy, therapeutic impact and cost effectiveness of MRE and USS in newly diagnosed and relapsing CD.MethodsMETRIC (ISRCTN03982913) is a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective comparison study. Two patient cohorts will be recruited; those newly diagnosed with CD, and those with suspected relapse. Both will undergo MRE and USS in addition to other imaging tests performed as part of clinical care. Strict blinding protocols will be enforced for those interpreting MRE and USS. The Harvey Bradshaw index, C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin will be collected at recruitment and 3 months, and patient experience will be assessed via questionnaires. A multidisciplinary consensus panel will assess all available clinical and imaging data up to 6 months after recruitment of each patient and will define the standard of reference for the presence, localisation and activity of disease against which the diagnostic accuracy of MRE and USS will be judged. Diagnostic impact of MRE and USS will be evaluated and cost effectiveness will be assessed. The primary outcome measure is the difference in per patient sensitivity between MRE and USS for the correct identification and localisation of small bowel CD.DiscussionThe trial is open at 5 centres with 46 patients recruited. We highlight the importance of stringent blinding protocols in order to delineate the true diagnostic accuracy of both imaging tests and discuss the difficulties of diagnostic accuracy studies in the absence of a single standard of reference, describing our approach utilising a consensus panel whilst minimising incorporation bias.Trial registrationMETRIC - ISRCTN03982913 – 05.11.13.

IntroductionThe current mainstay of the treatment of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is long-term anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. Non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which include rivaroxaban, have been shown to be effective and safe compared with warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in major phase III prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but the results may not be directly generalizable to patients with APS.AimsThe primary aim is to demonstrate, in patients with APS and previous VTE, with or without systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), that the intensity of anticoagulation achieved with rivaroxaban is not inferior to that of warfarin. Secondary aims are to compare rates of recurrent thrombosis, bleeding and the quality of life in patients on rivaroxaban with those on warfarin.MethodsRivaroxaban in antiphospholipid syndrome (RAPS) is a phase II/III prospective non-inferiority RCT in which eligible patients with APS, with or without SLE, who are on warfarin, target international normalized ratio (INR) 2.5 for previous VTE, will be randomized either to continue warfarin (standard of care) or to switch to rivaroxaban. Intensity of anticoagulation will be assessed using thrombin generation (TG) testing, with the primary outcome the percentage change in endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) from randomization to day 42. Other TG parameters, markers of in vivo coagulation activation, prothrombin fragment 1.2, thrombin antithrombin complex and D-dimer, will also be assessed.DiscussionIf RAPS demonstrates i) that the anticoagulant effect of rivaroxaban is not inferior to that of warfarin and ii) the absence of any adverse effects that cause concern with regard to the use of rivaroxaban, this would provide sufficient supporting evidence to make rivaroxaban a standard of care for the treatment of APS patients with previous VTE, requiring a target INR of 2.5.

No abstract