Search

Alexander GG Turpie,1 André C Schmidt,2 Reinhold Kreutz,3 Michael R Lassen,4 Waheed Jama,1,2 Lorenzo Mantovani,5 Sylvia Haas61Department of Medicine, Hamilton Health Sciences, General Division, Ontario, Canada; 2Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Global Development, Berlin, Germany; 3Institut für Klinische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte, Berlin, Germany; 4Department of Orthopaedics, Spine Clinic, Clinical Trial Unit, Hørsholm Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hørsholm, Denmark; 5Faculty of Pharmacy, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy; 6Institut für Experimentelle Onkologie und Therapieforschung, TU München, GermanyAbstract: Venous thromboembolism is a frequent and potentially life-threatening complication of orthopedic surgery. Rivaroxaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, which was shown to be effective for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective hip and knee arthroplasty in the RECORD study program. Rivaroxaban has the potential to overcome the limitations of the current standards of care in the prevention of venous thromboembolism. XAMOS (Xarelto® in the prophylaxis of post-surgical venous thromboembolism after elective major orthopedic surgery of hip or knee) is an international, noninterventional, parallel-group study to gain insight into the safety (major bleeding, side effects) and effectiveness (prevention of symptomatic thromboembolic events) of rivaroxaban in daily clinical practice. XAMOS will follow 15,000 patients after major orthopedic surgery in approximately 200 centers worldwide, with about 7500 patients receiving rivaroxaban and about 7500 standard of care. XAMOS will supplement the clinical data obtained in the Phase III RECORD 1, 2, 3, and 4 trials in which rivaroxaban was shown to be superior for the primary efficacy endpoints, and with a safety profile similar to that of enoxaparin after hip or knee replacement surgery. XAMOS was started in 2009 and will complete recruitment and follow-up in 2011.Keywords: rivaroxaban, venous thromboembolism, effectiveness, oral anticoagulation

Acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients are at risk of VTE. Despite guidelines for VTE prevention, prophylaxis use in these patients is still poor, possibly because of fear of bleeding risk. We used data from the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) to assess in-hospital bleeding incidence and to identify risk factors at admission associated with in-hospital bleeding risk in acutely ill medical patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Extended-duration low-molecular-weight heparin has been shown to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in high-risk surgical patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of extended-duration enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients. DESIGN: Randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated. Allocation was centralized. Patients, caregivers, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00077753) SETTING: 370 sites in 20 countries across North and South America, Europe, and Asia. PATIENTS: Acutely ill medical patients 40 years or older with recently reduced mobility (bed rest or sedentary without [level 1] or with [level 2] bathroom privileges). Eligibility criteria for patients with level 2 immobility were amended to include only those who had additional VTE risk factors (age >75 years, history of VTE, or active or previous cancer) after interim analyses suggested lower-than-expected VTE rates. INTERVENTION: Enoxaparin, 40 mg/d subcutaneously (2975 patients), or placebo (2988 patients), for 28 +/- 4 days after receiving open-label enoxaparin for an initial 10 +/- 4 days. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of VTE up to day 28 and of major bleeding events up to 48 hours after the last study treatment dose. RESULTs: Extended-duration enoxaparin reduced VTE incidence compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 4%; absolute risk difference favoring enoxaparin, -1.53% [95.8% CI, -2.54% to -0.52%]). Enoxaparin increased major bleeding events (0.8% vs. 0.3%; absolute risk difference favoring placebo, 0.51% [95% CI, 0.12% to 0.89%]). The benefits of extended-duration enoxaparin seemed to be restricted to women, patients older than 75 years, and those with level 1 immobility. LIMITATION: Estimates of efficacy and safety for the overall trial population are difficult to interpret because of the change in eligibility criteria during the trial. CONCLUSION: Use of extended-duration enoxaparin reduces VTE more than it increases major bleeding events in acutely ill medical patients with level 1 immobility, those older than 75 years, and women. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Sanofi-aventis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a clinical need for novel oral anticoagulants with predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Rivaroxaban is an oral direct Factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor in clinical development for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders. This analysis was performed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban in patients participating in two phase II, double-blind, randomized, active-comparator-controlled studies of twice-daily rivaroxaban for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip- or knee-replacement surgery.Methods: Sparse blood samples were taken from all patients participating in the studies (n = 1009). In addition, a subset of patients in the hip study (n = 36) underwent full profiling. Rivaroxaban plasma concentrations, FXa activity and the prothrombin time were determined. Nonlinear mixed-effects modelling was used to model the population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban.Results: An oral one-compartment model described the population pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban well. On the first postoperative day only, categorization of patients as slow or fast absorbers as a tool to address variability in absorption improved the fit of the model. Clearance of rivaroxaban was lower and more variable on the first postoperative day, and so time was factored into the model. Overall, the only major difference between the models for the hip study and the knee study was that clearance was 26% lower in the knee study, resulting in approximately 30% higher exposure. Residual variability in the models was moderate (37% and 34% in the hip and knee studies, respectively). Plasma concentrations of rivaroxaban increased dose dependently. Pharmacokinetic parameters that were estimated using the models agreed closely with results from full-profile patients in the hip study, demonstrating that rivaroxaban pharmacokinetics are predictable. The pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban were affected by expected covariates: age affected clearance in the hip study only, haematocrit (on the first postoperative day only) and gender affected clearance in the knee study only, and renal function affected clearance in both studies. Bodyweight affected the volume of distribution in both studies. However, the effects of covariates on the pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban were generally small, and predictions of 'extreme' case scenarios suggested that fixed dosing of rivaroxaban was likely to be possible. FXa activity and the prothrombin time were both affected by surgery, probably because of perioperative bleeding and intravenous administration of fluids; therefore, time was included in the pharmacodynamic models. In both studies, FXa activity correlated with rivaroxaban plasma concentrations following a maximum effect model, whereas prothrombin time prolongation correlated following a linear model with intercept. The slope of the prothrombin time prolongation correlation was 3.2 seconds/(100 microg/L) in the hip study and 4.2 seconds/(100 microg/L) in the knee study. Both pharmacodynamic models in both studies demonstrated low residual variability of approximately 10%.Conclusion: This population analysis in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery demonstrated that rivaroxaban has predictable, dose-dependent pharmacokinetics that were well described by an oral one-compartment model and affected by expected covariates. Rivaroxaban exposure could be assessed using the prothrombin time, if necessary, but not the international normalized ratio. The findings suggested that fixed dosing of rivaroxaban may be possible in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines recommend that acutely ill hospitalized medical patients who are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) should receive prophylaxis. Our aim was to characterize the clinical practices for VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients enrolled in the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE). METHODS: IMPROVE is an ongoing, multinational, observational study. Participating hospitals enroll the first 10 consecutive eligible acutely ill medical patients each month. Patient management is determined by the treating physicians. An analysis of data on VTE prophylaxis practices is presented. RESULTS: From July 2002 to September 30, 2006, 15,156 patients were enrolled from 52 hospitals in 12 countries, of whom 50% received in-hospital pharmacologic and/or mechanical VTE prophylaxis. In the United States and other participating countries, 52% and 43% of patients, respectively, should have received prophylaxis according to guideline recommendations from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). Only approximately 60% of patients who either met the ACCP criteria for requiring prophylaxis or were eligible for enrollment in randomized clinical trials that have shown the benefits of pharmacologic prophylaxis actually received prophylaxis. Practices varied considerably. Intermittent pneumatic compression was the most common form of medical prophylaxis utilized in the United States, although it was used very rarely in other countries (22% vs 0.2%, respectively). Unfractionated heparin was the most frequent pharmacologic approach used in the United States (21% of patients), with low-molecular-weight heparin used most frequently in other participating countries (40%). There was also variable use of elastic stockings in the United States and other participating countries (3% vs 7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that physicians' practices for providing VTE prophylaxis to acutely ill hospitalized medical patients are suboptimal and highlight the need for improved implementation of existing evidence-based guidelines in hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To provide family physicians and pharmacists with practical, evidence- and expertise-based guidance on choosing the safest approach to using analgesics to manage patients with musculoskeletal pain. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Health care providers from family practice, rheumatology, gastroenterology, hepatology, internal medicine, and pharmacy participated in an educational needs assessment regarding the management of pain and the safety of commonly used analgesics. Feedback from one-on-one interviews was compiled and distributed to participants who selected key topics. Topics chosen formed the basis for the discussions of this multidisciplinary panel that reviewed data on the safety of analgesics, particularly in regard to comorbidity and concurrent use with other therapies. MAIN MESSAGE: Treatment should begin with an effective analgesic with the best safety profile at the lowest dose and escalate to higher doses and different analgesics as required. Acetaminophen is a safe medication that should be considered first-line therapy. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with potential adverse gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular effects. Physicians should not prescribe NSAIDs before taking a careful history and doing a physical examination so they have the information they need to weigh the risks (adverse effects and potential drug interactions) and benefits for individual patients. CONCLUSION: Taking a complete and accurate history and doing a physical examination are essential for choosing the safest analgesic for a particular patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It may be safe to omit additional diagnostic testing in selected patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) who have a negative D-dimer test, but this approach has never been evaluated in a randomized, controlled trial.Objective: To determine if additional diagnostic testing can be safely withheld in patients with suspected PE who have negative erythrocyte agglutination D-dimer test results.Design: Randomized comparisons in 2 subgroups of a prospective multicenter study.Setting: 7 university hospitals.Patients: 1126 outpatients or inpatients with suspected PE; of these, 456 patients with negative erythrocyte agglutination D-dimer test results were randomly assigned to the intervention groups. Patients were classified into 2 clinical probability groups: those with a low clinical probability of PE (low-probability group) and those with a moderate or high clinical probability of PE, a nondiagnostic ventilation-perfusion lung scan, and no evidence of proximal deep venous thrombosis on bilateral ultrasonography (moderate- or high-probability group).Interventions: The experimental intervention for both probability groups was no further diagnostic testing for PE. The control intervention for the low-probability group was a ventilation-perfusion lung scan followed by ultrasonography of the proximal deep veins of the legs on the same day. If the lung scan was nondiagnostic, ultrasonography of the legs was repeated 7 and 14 days later. The control intervention for the moderate- or high-probability group was ultrasonography of the proximal deep veins of the legs after 7 and 14 days. In the control and experimental groups, anticoagulation was withheld or withdrawn if PE was not diagnosed.Measurements: Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) during 6 months of follow-up.Results: Prevalence of VTE was 15.2% in the 1126 enrolled patients. In the low-probability group, VTE occurred during follow-up in 0 of 182 patients who had no additional diagnostic testing and in 1 of 185 patients who had additional testing (difference, -0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -3.0 to 1.6 percentage points]). In the moderate- or high-probability group, VTE occurred during follow-up in 1 of 41 patients who had no additional diagnostic testing and in 0 of 41 patients who had additional testing (difference, 2.4 percentage points [CI, -6.4 to 12.6 percentage points]).Limitations: The authors could not enroll 2000 patients as originally planned; 3 randomly assigned patients did not receive the allocated intervention, and 7 received inadequate follow-up. Personnel who performed follow-up evaluations were not blinded to the results of diagnostic testing at enrollment or to allocation group assignments.Conclusion: In patients with a low probability of PE who have negative D-dimer results, additional diagnostic testing can be withheld without increasing the frequency of VTE during follow-up. Low clinical probability and negative D-dimer results occur in 50% of outpatients and in 20% of inpatients with suspected PE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jan Beyer-Westendorf,1 Patrick Mouret,2 Alexander GG Turpie3 1Thrombosis Research and Angiology, Dresden University Clinic, Dresden, Germany; 2Orthopedic Clinic, Klinikum Frankfurt Höchst GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany; 3Department of Medicine, General Division, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada Abstract: An established standard of care for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after major orthopedic surgery has been subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin. The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has demonstrated superior efficacy and similar safety to all tested regimens of enoxaparin in large Phase III clinical studies of venous thromboembolism prevention after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. Despite regulatory approval of rivaroxaban for this indication, concerns remain among physicians regarding its optimal and effective use in routine clinical practice. Real-life studies, such as XAMOS and ORTHO-TEP, are providing physicians with more information on the routine use of rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism prevention after orthopedic surgery, helping to establish its safety and effectiveness in everyday clinical care. Among the most important issues are the risk of bleeding complications, wound healing, timing of first dose, impact of type of anesthesia on thromboprophylaxis effectiveness, patient comorbidities and comedication use, periprocedural management, associated costs, and clinical outcomes in trauma-related fractures. Many of these issues are difficult to study in randomized, double-blind, Phase III trials, and can be assessed more readily using real-life data. In particular, real-life or noninterventional studies lack many of the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria associated with Phase III trials and involve unselected patients who often present with significant comorbidities or comedication use. Keywords: anticoagulants, arthroplasty, orthopedics, rivaroxaban, thrombosis

Sylvia Haas,1 Gerlind Holberg,2 Reinhold Kreutz,3 Michael Rud Lassen,4 Lorenzo Mantovani,5 Verena Haupt,6 Kai Vogtländer,7 Alexander GG Turpie8 1Formerly Technical University of Munich, 2Bayer HealthCare AG, 3Institut für Klinische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; 4Glostrup Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, Denmark; 5CESP-Center for Public Health Research, University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy; 6Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen, 7Bayer Pharma AG, Wuppertal, Germany; 8Department of Medicine, Hamilton Health Services, Hamilton, ON, Canada Purpose: Real-world data on the use of rivaroxaban in the perioperative period in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery are limited. Subsets of data from the Phase IV, noninterventional XAMOS study were analyzed to explore the potential influence of timing of the first thromboprophylactic dose, type of anesthesia, and concomitant mechanical prophylaxis on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery in routine clinical practice. Patients and methods: In XAMOS, 8,778 patients received rivaroxaban (10 mg once daily) and 8,635 received standard-of-care (SOC) pharmacological prophylaxis (safety population). Crude incidences of symptomatic thromboembolic and treatment-emergent bleeding events were analyzed according to timing of the first postoperative thromboprophylactic dose, use of general or neuraxial anesthesia, and use of mechanical prophylaxis with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. Results: In the rivaroxaban group, the incidences of symptomatic thromboembolic events were 0.7%, 1.0%, and 0.7% in patients receiving the first thromboprophylactic dose at ≤6 hours, >6 hours to ≤10 hours, and >10 hours to ≤24 hours after surgery, respectively. In the SOC group, the incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events was slightly higher when the postoperative dose was given at >10 hours to ≤24 hours (1.8% vs 1.1% at ≤6 hours and 1.3% at >6 hours to ≤10 hours). The antithrombotic effect of rivaroxaban was maintained in comparison to the SOC group. The incidence of major bleeding (RECORD trial definition) was low and similar between the two treatment groups and was not influenced by timing of the first thromboprophylactic dose. Neuraxial anesthesia was used more than any other form of anesthesia for both hip and knee surgery; the effectiveness of rivaroxaban was not influenced by the type of anesthesia used. No spinal hematomas were reported in patients receiving neuraxial anesthesia in either treatment group. Use of mechanical thromboprophylaxis in addition to rivaroxaban or SOC pharmacological prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of thromboembolic events further. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery in routine clinical practice were maintained irrespective of timing of the first postoperative dose within 24 hours after surgery, the type of anesthesia, and the additional use of mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Keywords: bleeding event, rivaroxaban, thromboprophylaxis, VTE prevention

A John Camm,1 Pierre Amarenco,2 Sylvia Haas,3 Susanne Hess,4 Paulus Kirchhof,5,6 Martin van Eickels,4 Alexander GG Turpie71Division of Clinical Sciences, St George's, University of London, London, UK; 2Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Paris-Diderot-Sorbonne University, Paris, France; 3Vascular Center, Munich, Germany; 4Medical Affairs, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany; 5Centre for Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham and Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK; 6Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany; 7Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaAbstract: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a fivefold increase in the risk of stroke. The Phase III ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once-Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial showed that rivaroxaban, an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor, was noninferior to warfarin for the reduction of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF. Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban significantly reduced rates of intracranial and fatal hemorrhages, although not rates of bleeding overall. XANTUS (Xarelto® for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, international, observational, postauthorization, noninterventional study designed to collect safety and efficacy data on the use of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in AF in routine clinical practice. The key goal is to determine whether the safety profile of rivaroxaban established in ROCKET AF is also observed in routine clinical practice. XANTUS is designed as a single-arm cohort study to minimize selection bias, and will enroll approximately 6,000 patients (mostly from Europe) with nonvalvular AF prescribed rivaroxaban, irrespective of their level of stroke risk. Overall duration of follow-up will be 1 year; the first patient was enrolled in June 2012. Similar studies (XANTUS-EL [Xarelto® for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America] and XANAP [Xarelto® for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Asia-Pacific]) are ongoing in Latin America and Asia-Pacific. Data from these studies will supplement those from ROCKET AF and provide practical information concerning the use of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in AF.Keywords: rivaroxaban, anticoagulants, atrial fibrillation, stroke, Phase IV

Alexander GG Turpie Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ONT, Canada Abstract: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the developed world and is associated with a fivefold increase in the risk of stroke, accounting for up to 15% of strokes in the general population. The European Society of Cardiology now recommends direct oral anticoagulants, such as rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran, in preference to vitamin K antagonist therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF. This review focuses on the direct Factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, summarizing the properties that make rivaroxaban appropriate for anticoagulant therapy in this indication (including its predictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile and once-daily dosing regimen) and describing data from the Phase III ROCKET AF trial, which showed once-daily rivaroxaban to be noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF. In this trial, similar rates of major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding were observed; however, when compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban was associated with clinically significant reductions in intracranial and fatal bleeding. On the basis of these results, rivaroxaban was approved in both the United States and the European Union for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular AF. Subanalyses of ROCKET AF data showed rivaroxaban to have consistent efficacy and safety across a wide range of patients, and studies to confirm these results in real-world settings are underway. This review also describes practical considerations for treatment with rivaroxaban in clinical practice (including dose reductions in specific high-risk patients, eg, those with renal impairment), recommendations for the transition from vitamin K antagonists to rivaroxaban, the management of bleeding events, and the measurement of rivaroxaban exposure. Keywords: atrial fibrillation, stroke, rivaroxaban, anticoagulation

Bennett Levitan,1 Zhong Yuan,1 Alexander GG Turpie,2 Richard J Friedman,3 Martin Homering,4 Jesse A Berlin,1 Scott D Berkowitz,5 Rachel B Weinstein,1 Peter M DiBattiste61Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA; 2Hamilton Health Sciences McMaster Clinic, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 3Charleston Orthopaedic Associates, Charleston, SC, USA; 4Bayer HealthCare, Berlin, Germany; 5Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, NJ, USA; 6Janssen Research & Development, Raritan, NJ, USAPurpose: Venous thromboembolism is a common complication after major orthopedic surgery. When prescribing anticoagulant prophylaxis, clinicians weigh the benefits of thromboprophylaxis against bleeding risk and other adverse events. Previous benefit–risk analyses of the REgulation of Coagulation in ORthopaedic surgery to prevent Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (RECORD) randomized clinical studies of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin after total hip (THA) or knee (TKA) arthroplasty generally used pooled THA and TKA results, counted fatal bleeding as both an efficacy and a safety event, and included the active and placebo-controlled portions of RECORD2, which might confound benefit–risk assessments. We conducted a post hoc analysis without these constraints to assess benefit–risk for rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin in the RECORD studies.Patients and methods: Data from the safety population of the two THA and two TKA studies were pooled separately. The primary analysis compared the temporal course of event rates and rate differences between rivaroxaban and enoxaparin prophylaxis for symptomatic venous thromboembolism plus all-cause mortality (efficacy events) versus nonfatal major bleeding (safety events). Additionally, these rates were used to derive measures of net clinical benefit, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm (NNH) for these two end points.Results: After THA or TKA, and compared with enoxaparin, rivaroxaban therapy resulted in more efficacy events prevented than safety events caused, with benefits exceeding harms early and throughout treatment and follow-up. Relative to enoxaparin, rivaroxaban treatment prevented six efficacy events per harm event caused for THA, with NNT =262/NNH =1,711. For TKA, rivaroxaban treatment prevented four to five efficacy events per harm event caused, with NNT =102/NNH =442. Sensitivity analysis that included surgical-site bleeding resulted in NNH =345 for THA and NNH =208 for TKA.Conclusion: In the RECORD studies, considering death, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, and major bleeding, rivaroxaban resulted in greater benefits than harms compared with enoxaparin. When incorporating surgical-site bleeding, rivaroxaban also results in greater benefit than harm for TKA and is balanced with enoxaparin for THA.Keywords: VTE, DVT, PE, thromboprophylaxis, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty

Sylvia Haas,1 Christoph Bode,2 Bo Norrving,3 Alexander GG Turpie4 1Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany; 2Department of Cardiology and Angiology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; 3Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; 4Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Abstract: Rivaroxaban is a direct factor Xa inhibitor that is widely available to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and one or more risk factors for stroke. Rivaroxaban provides practical advantages compared with warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists, including a rapid onset of action, few drug interactions, no dietary interactions, a predictable anticoagulant effect, and no requirement for routine coagulation monitoring. However, questions have emerged relating to the responsible use of rivaroxaban in day-to-day clinical practice, including patient selection, dosing, treatment of patients with renal impairment, conversion from use of vitamin K antagonists to rivaroxaban and vice versa, coagulation tests, and management of patients requiring invasive procedures or experiencing bleeding or an ischemic event. This article provides practical recommendations relating to the use of rivaroxaban in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, based on clinical trial evidence, relevant guidelines, prescribing information, and the authors' clinical experience. Keywords: novel oral anticoagulants, direct factor Xa inhibitor, peri-interventional management, practical guidance, rivaroxaban, stroke prevention