A randomized direct comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of apixaban and rivaroxaban
Authors Frost C, Song Y, Barrett YC, Wang J, Pursley J, Boyd RA, LaCreta F
Received 22 January 2014
Accepted for publication 17 September 2014
Published 13 November 2014 Volume 2014:6 Pages 179—187
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Professor Arthur Frankel
Charles Frost,1 Yan Song,1 Yu Chen Barrett,1 Jessie Wang,2 Janice Pursley,3 Rebecca A Boyd,4 Frank LaCreta1
1Exploratory Clinical and Translational Research, 2Exploratory Development Global Biometric Sciences, 3Analytical and Bioanalytical Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ, USA; 4Global Innovative Pharma Business Clinical Pharmacology, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT, USA
Background: Currently, there are no direct comparisons of apixaban and rivaroxaban, two new oral direct factor Xa inhibitors approved for management of thromboembolic disorders.
Objective: Compare the pharmacokinetics and anti-factor Xa activity (AXA) of apixaban and rivaroxaban.
Methods: In this randomized, open-label, two-period, two-treatment crossover study, healthy subjects (N=14) received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily (BID) and rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily (QD) for 4 days with a ≥4.5-day washout. Plasma samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic and AXA assessments; parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods.
Results: Median time-to-maximum concentration was 2 hours for both compounds, and the mean half-life was 8.7 and 7.9 hours for apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively. Daily exposure, the area under the curve (AUC(0–24)), appeared similar for rivaroxaban (1,094 ng · h/mL) and apixaban (935 ng · h/mL), whereas mean peak-to-trough plasma concentration ratio was 3.6-fold greater for rivaroxaban (16.9) than apixaban (4.7). Coefficient of variation for exposure parameters (AUC0–24, Cmax, Cmin) was 20%–24% for apixaban versus 29%–46% for rivaroxaban. Peak AXA, AXA AUC(0–24), and AXA fluctuation were ~2.5-, 1.3-, and 3.5-fold higher for rivaroxaban than apixaban, respectively. Trough concentrations and AXA were lower for rivaroxaban (10 ng/mL and 0.17 IU/mL vs 17 ng/mL and 0.24 IU/mL for apixaban, respectively). Rivaroxaban exhibited a steeper concentration–AXA response (slope: 0.0172 IU/ng vs 0.0134 IU/ng for apixaban, P<0.0001).
Conclusion: Apixaban 2.5 mg BID demonstrated less intersubject variability in exposure, lower AXA AUC, and higher trough and smaller peak-to-trough fluctuations in plasma concentration and AXA, suggesting more constant anticoagulation compared with rivaroxaban 10 mg QD. However, the clinical impact of these differences on the relative efficacy and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban remains to be determined.
Keywords: apixaban, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, rivaroxaban, safety
A letter to the Editor has been received and published for this article.
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]