Deepa Jayakody Arachchillage

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin to treat patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, with or without systemic lupus erythematosus (RAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2/3, non-inferiority trial

Summary Background Rivaroxaban is established for the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism, but whether it is useful in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome is uncertain. Methods This 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. Findings Of 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. Interpretation ETP 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. Funding Arthritis Research UK, Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, LUPUS UK, Bayer, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Use of New Oral Anticoagulants in Antiphospholipid Syndrome

The current mainstay of treatment of thrombotic APS is long-term anticoagulation with oral vitamin K antagonists (VKA) such as warfarin. However, the use of warfarin is problematic, particularly in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) include dabigatran etexilate (Pradaxa®), a direct thrombin inhibitor, and rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), Apixaban (Eliquis) and Edoxaban (Lixiana®), which are direct anti-Xa inhibitors. Unlike warfarin, these agents do not interact with dietary constituents and alcohol, have few reported drug interactions, and monitoring of their anticoagulant intensity is not routinely required due to their predictable anticoagulant effects. In this chapter, we discuss clinical and laboratory aspects of NOAC. These agents have been approved for several therapeutic indications based on phase III prospective randomised controlled clinical trials using warfarin at a target INR of 2.5 (i.e. range 2.0–3.0) as the comparator. However these trials may not be directly applicable to patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) where prospective clinical studies of NOAC are the way forward.

Pregnancy outcome in patients exposed to direct oral anticoagulants - and the challenge of event reporting

Today, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are widely used alternatives to Vitamin-K antagonists (VKA). Women of reproductive age may become pregnant during anticoagulation and, while VKA carry an embryotoxic potential, the risk of DOAC embryopathy is unknown. As a result, some patients elect to terminate pregnancy for fear of DOAC embryotoxicity. To assess the risk of DOAC embryopathy, we reviewed cases of DOAC exposure in pregnancy collected from physicians, literature and pharmacovigilance systems of drug authorities and manufacturers. A total of 357 reports including duplicates were available from which 233 unique cases could be identified. Information on pregnancy outcome was available in only 137/233 cases (58.8 %): 67 live births (48.9 %); 31 miscarriages (22.6 %); 39 elective pregnancy terminations (28.5 %). In 93 cases (39.9 %) no outcome data were available (including 3 cases of ongoing pregnancy). Of the 137 pregnancies with reported outcomes, seven showed abnormalities (5.1 %) of which three (2.2 %) could potentially be interpreted as embryopathy: live birth with facial dysmorphism; miscarriage in week 10 with limb abnormality; elective pregnancy termination due to a foetal cardiac defect in a woman who had to terminate a previous pregnancy due to Fallot tetralogy. Within its limitations (small numbers, incomplete outcome data) our results do not indicate that DOAC exposure in pregnancy carries a high risk of embryopathy or that DOAC exposure per se should be used to direct patient counselling towards pregnancy termination. Pregnancy outcome data are inconsistently captured in pharmacovigilance databases indicating the strong need for a more robust system of reporting.

Diagnosis and management of non-criteria obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome

Accurate diagnosis of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a prerequisite for optimal clinical management. The international consensus (revised Sapporo) criteria for obstetric APS do not include low positive anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies (< 99th centile) and/or certain clinical criteria such as two unexplained miscarriages, three non-consecutive miscarriages, late pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, late premature birth, or two or more unexplained in vitro fertilisation failures. In this review we examine the available evidence to address the question of whether patients who exhibit non-criteria clinical and/or laboratory manifestations should be included within the spectrum of obstetric APS. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies of women with pregnancy morbidity, particularly recurrent pregnancy loss, suggest that elimination of aCL and/or IgM aβ2GPI, or low positive positive aCL or aβ2GPI from APS laboratory diagnostic criteria may result in missing the diagnosis in a sizeable number of women who could be regarded to have obstetric APS. Such prospective and retrospective studies also suggest that women with non-criteria obstetric APS may benefit from standard treatment for obstetric APS with low-molecular-weight heparin plus low-dose aspirin, with good pregnancy outcomes. Thus, non-criteria manifestations of obstetric APS may be clinically relevant, and merit investigation of therapeutic approaches. Women with obstetric APS appear to be at a higher risk than other women of pre-eclampsia, placenta-mediated complications and neonatal mortality, and also at increased long-term risk of thrombotic events. The applicability of these observations to outcomes in women with non-criteria obstetric APS remains to be determined.

Interactions between rivaroxaban and antiphospholipid antibodies in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.

Rivaroxaban can affect lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) may interfere with the anticoagulant action of rivaroxaban.

Anti-protein C antibodies are associated with resistance to endogenous protein C activation and a severe thrombotic phenotype in antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid antibodies may interfere with the anticoagulant activity of activated protein C (APC) to induce acquired APC resistance (APCr).

Rivaroxaban limits complement activation compared with warfarin in antiphospholipid syndrome patients with venous thromboembolism

Essentials Complement activation has a pathogenic role in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Coagulation proteases such as factor Xa can activate complement proteins. Complement activation markers were elevated in anticoagulated thrombotic APS patients. Complement activation decreased in APS patients switching from warfarin to rivaroxaban.

Pathogenesis and management of antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid antibodies are a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies that have clear associations with thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity, and which together constitute the ‘antiphospholipid syndrome’ (APS). However, the pathophysiology of these complications is not well understood and their heterogeneity suggests that more than one pathogenic process may be involved. Diagnosis remains a combination of laboratory analysis and clinical observation but there have been significant advances in identifying specific pathogenic features, such as domain I‐specific anti‐β2‐glycoprotein‐I antibodies. This in turn has pointed to endothelial and complement activation as important factors in the pathogenesis of APS. Consequently, although anticoagulation remains the standard treatment for thrombotic APS and during pregnancy, the realisation that these additional pathways are involved in the pathogenesis of APS has significant implications for treatment: agents acting outside the coagulation system, such as hydroxychloroquine for pregnancy complications and sirolimus as an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway, are now under evaluation and represent a radical change in thinking for haematologists. Conventional anticoagulation is also under challenge from new, direct acting anticoagulants. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the evolving understanding of APS pathogenesis and how this and novel therapeutics will alter diagnosis and management.

Thrombin generation and factor X assays for the assessment of warfarin anticoagulation in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.

Monitoring warfarin anticoagulation in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) may be complicated by the sensitivity of different thromboplastins to lupus anticoagulant. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of anticoagulation intensity in thrombotic APS and non-APS patients (50 in each group) on long-term warfarin, by measurement of the INR with two widely available thromboplastins with instrument-specific ISI values, and to investigate the potential role of amidolytic FX levels and thrombin generation (TG) testing in the assessment of anticoagulant intensity in thrombotic APS patients. There were no overall differences in INR between reagents or patient groups, but 20% (10/50) of APS patients showed ≥0.5 INR unit difference between reagents, which would have resulted in altered clinical management in some patients. FX levels were useful in assessing anticoagulation intensity for INR 2.0-3.0, but showed poor utility at INR ≥3.5 where the lowest measured FX level was 12IU/dL. In contrast, ETP and peak thrombin showed significant inverse correlations with the INR, suggesting that TG testing may be helpful in the determination of true anticoagulant intensity in APS patients, including those with ≥3.5 INR. TG testing also highlighted a subgroup of APS patients with increased peak thrombin relative to the intensity of anticoagulation as assessed by INR and FX, suggesting that TG testing may be useful in identifying an ongoing prothrombotic state in patients with apparently adequate anticoagulation intensity as assessed by INR.

Rivaroxaban and warfarin achieve effective anticoagulation, as assessed by inhibition of TG and in-vivo markers of coagulation activation, in patients with venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION Rivaroxaban is non-inferior to warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, with regard to clinical efficacy and safety. The ex-vivo effects of warfarin versus therapeutic dose rivaroxaban on in-vivo markers of coagulation activation and thrombin generation remain undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of warfarin and therapeutic dose rivaroxaban on ex-vivo thrombin generation (TG), and the in-vivo markers of coagulation activation, prothrombin fragment 1.2 (F1.2), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), and D-dimer. METHODS Eighty-five patients with venous thromboembolism were studied, 45 on warfarin, target INR 2.5 and 40 on rivaroxaban 20mg once daily. RESULTS Anticoagulation was in therapeutic range in 71% (32/45) warfarin and 65% (26/40) rivaroxaban treated patients. 8 patients on warfarin and 9 patients on rivaroxaban had subtherapeutic INR and rivaroxaban levels respectively. Both rivaroxaban and warfarin reduced endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) and peak thrombin, and prolonged lag time and time to peak, compared to normal controls (p<0.0001). The lag time and time to peak TG were longer, and peak thrombin was lower in patients receiving rivaroxaban (p<0.0001) compared with warfarin, although warfarin-treated patients had lower ETP (p=0.0008). In-vivo coagulation activation markers were within the normal ranges in all rivaroxaban-treated patients (including those with levels considered to be subtherapeutic) and in 37/45 warfarin-treated patients who had an INR≥2.0. The warfarin-treated patients with subtherapeutic INRs exhibited slightly raised F1.2 and/or TAT. CONCLUSION In conclusion, both rivaroxaban and warfarin provided effective anticoagulation, as assessed by inhibition of TG and makers of in-vivo coagulation activation.