The Experts below are selected from a list of 63 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Masaharu Kato - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • rivaroxaban vs warfarin in japanese patients with atrial fibrillation
    Circulation, 2012
    Co-Authors: Masatsugu Hori, Masayasu Matsumoto, Norio Tanahashi, Shinichi Momomura, Shinichiro Uchiyama, Shinya Goto, Tohru Izumi, Yukihiro Koretsune, Mariko Kajikawa, Masaharu Kato
    Abstract:

    Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic Embolism Prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic Embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic Embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.  (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)

  • rivaroxaban vs warfarin in japanese patients with atrial fibrillation the j rocket af study
    Circulation, 2012
    Co-Authors: Masatsugu Hori, Masayasu Matsumoto, Norio Tanahashi, Shinichi Momomura, Shinichiro Uchiyama, Shinya Goto, Tohru Izumi, Yukihiro Koretsune, Mariko Kajikawa, Masaharu Kato
    Abstract:

    Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic Embolism Prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic Embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic Embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.  (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)

Masatsugu Hori - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • rivaroxaban vs warfarin in japanese patients with atrial fibrillation
    Circulation, 2012
    Co-Authors: Masatsugu Hori, Masayasu Matsumoto, Norio Tanahashi, Shinichi Momomura, Shinichiro Uchiyama, Shinya Goto, Tohru Izumi, Yukihiro Koretsune, Mariko Kajikawa, Masaharu Kato
    Abstract:

    Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic Embolism Prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic Embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic Embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.  (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)

  • rivaroxaban vs warfarin in japanese patients with atrial fibrillation the j rocket af study
    Circulation, 2012
    Co-Authors: Masatsugu Hori, Masayasu Matsumoto, Norio Tanahashi, Shinichi Momomura, Shinichiro Uchiyama, Shinya Goto, Tohru Izumi, Yukihiro Koretsune, Mariko Kajikawa, Masaharu Kato
    Abstract:

    Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic Embolism Prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic Embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic Embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.  (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)

Francisco Marin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • thrombo Embolism and antithrombotic therapy for heart failure in sinus rhythm a joint consensus document from the esc heart failure association and the esc working group on thrombosis
    European Journal of Heart Failure, 2012
    Co-Authors: Piotr Ponikowski, Felicita Andreotti, Stefan D Anker, Gerasimos Filippatos, Shunichi Homma, Joao Morais, Patrick M Pullicino, Lars Hvilsted Rasmussen, Francisco Marin
    Abstract:

    Chronic heart failure (HF) with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is common and remains an extremely serious disorder with a high mortality and morbidity. Many complications related to HF can be related to thrombosis. Epidemiological and pathophysiological data also link HF to an increased risk of thrombosis, leading to the clinical consequences of sudden death, stroke, systemic thrombo-Embolism, and/or venous thrombo-Embolism. This consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (EHFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis reviews the published evidence and summarizes ‘best practice’, and puts forward consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist management decisions in everyday clinical practice. In HF patients with atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation is recommended, and the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores should be used to determine the likely risk–benefit ratio (thrombo-Embolism Prevention vs. risk of bleeding) of oral anticoagulation. In HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who are in sinus rhythm there is no evidence of an overall benefit of vitamin K antagonists (e.g. warfarin) on mortality, with risk of major bleeding. Despite the potential for a reduction in ischaemic stroke, there is currently no compelling reason to use warfarin routinely for these patients. Risk factors associated with increased risk of thrombo-embolic events should be identified and decisions regarding use of anticoagulation individualized. Patient values and preferences are important determinants when balancing the risk of thrombo-Embolism against bleeding risk. New oral anticoagulants that offer a different risk–benefit profile compared with warfarin may appear as an attractive therapeutic option, but this would need to be confirmed in clinical trials.

Patrick M Pullicino - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • thrombo Embolism and antithrombotic therapy for heart failure in sinus rhythm a joint consensus document from the esc heart failure association and the esc working group on thrombosis
    European Journal of Heart Failure, 2012
    Co-Authors: Piotr Ponikowski, Felicita Andreotti, Stefan D Anker, Gerasimos Filippatos, Shunichi Homma, Joao Morais, Patrick M Pullicino, Lars Hvilsted Rasmussen, Francisco Marin
    Abstract:

    Chronic heart failure (HF) with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is common and remains an extremely serious disorder with a high mortality and morbidity. Many complications related to HF can be related to thrombosis. Epidemiological and pathophysiological data also link HF to an increased risk of thrombosis, leading to the clinical consequences of sudden death, stroke, systemic thrombo-Embolism, and/or venous thrombo-Embolism. This consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (EHFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis reviews the published evidence and summarizes ‘best practice’, and puts forward consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist management decisions in everyday clinical practice. In HF patients with atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation is recommended, and the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores should be used to determine the likely risk–benefit ratio (thrombo-Embolism Prevention vs. risk of bleeding) of oral anticoagulation. In HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who are in sinus rhythm there is no evidence of an overall benefit of vitamin K antagonists (e.g. warfarin) on mortality, with risk of major bleeding. Despite the potential for a reduction in ischaemic stroke, there is currently no compelling reason to use warfarin routinely for these patients. Risk factors associated with increased risk of thrombo-embolic events should be identified and decisions regarding use of anticoagulation individualized. Patient values and preferences are important determinants when balancing the risk of thrombo-Embolism against bleeding risk. New oral anticoagulants that offer a different risk–benefit profile compared with warfarin may appear as an attractive therapeutic option, but this would need to be confirmed in clinical trials.

Masayasu Matsumoto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • rivaroxaban vs warfarin in japanese patients with atrial fibrillation
    Circulation, 2012
    Co-Authors: Masatsugu Hori, Masayasu Matsumoto, Norio Tanahashi, Shinichi Momomura, Shinichiro Uchiyama, Shinya Goto, Tohru Izumi, Yukihiro Koretsune, Mariko Kajikawa, Masaharu Kato
    Abstract:

    Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic Embolism Prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic Embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic Embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.  (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)

  • rivaroxaban vs warfarin in japanese patients with atrial fibrillation the j rocket af study
    Circulation, 2012
    Co-Authors: Masatsugu Hori, Masayasu Matsumoto, Norio Tanahashi, Shinichi Momomura, Shinichiro Uchiyama, Shinya Goto, Tohru Izumi, Yukihiro Koretsune, Mariko Kajikawa, Masaharu Kato
    Abstract:

    Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic Embolism Prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic Embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic Embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.  (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)