Search

Background: Several generic formulations of rivaroxaban were recently marketed to be used interchangeably with their branded equivalent. However, there have been no previously published studies that directly compared the in vitro anticoagulant effect of branded vs. generic rivaroxaban. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effects of three raw rivaroxaban materials, obtained from the branded (Xarelto®) and two generic (Rivarolto® and Rivaroxaban Sandoz®) rivaroxaban formulations on an array of coagulation assays., Methods: A pool of normal plasma was spiked with several concentrations of the three rivaroxaban (range 50-750 ng/ml). The concentrations were assessed with a rivaroxaban calibrated anti-Xa assay and confirmed by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). The following assays were performed: Prothrombin time (PT), activated Partial Thromboplastin time (aPTT), Diluted Russell's Viper Venom Test (dRVVT), Thrombin time (TT), Clauss Fibrinogen, Factor VII, VIII and IX assays, and thromboelastography., Results: The results obtained by the three rivaroxaban at similar concentrations were comparable. Increasing concentrations of the three rivaroxaban showed a strong positive correlation with the PT, aPTT and dRVVT assays (r > 0.95, p < 0.01 for all), and a strong negative correlation with the Factors assays (r < -0.95, p < 0.01 for all). TT and Clauss Fibrinogen were not affected by rivaroxaban. No significant difference was identified in the mean assays' results obtained by the three rivaroxaban., Conclusion: This study showed that the branded and generic rivaroxaban exert an identical in vitro anticoagulant effect across a wide range of concentrations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this study. This study was supported by grants from the University of Malta, Research Seed Fund, and from the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: D-dimer is included in the diagnostic algorithm for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, its role in the diagnosis of splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for SVT., Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis (PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42020184300). The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to March 2021 week 4. Studies which evaluated D-dimer accuracy for SVT in any category of patients were selected. The index test was any D-dimer assay; the reference standard was any radiological imaging. The QUADAS-2 checklist was used for the risk of bias assessment. A bivariate random-effects regression model was used to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity., Results: 12 studies (with a total of 1298 patients) evaluating the accuracy of D-dimer in patients at high risk of SVT (surgical patients, patients with liver cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma) were included. None of the included studies was at low risk of bias. The weighted mean prevalence of SVT was 33.4% (95% CI, 22.5-45.2%, I 2  = 94.8%). D-dimer accuracy was expressed by sensitivity 96% (95% CI, 72-100%); specificity 25% (95% CI, 5-67%); positive likelihood ratio 1.3 (95% CI, 0.9-1.9); negative likelihood ratio 0.16 (95% CI, 0.03-0.84); area under the ROC curve 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83)., Conclusions: D-dimer seems to have high sensitivity in the diagnosis of patients at high-risk for SVT. However, there is a strong need for more robust evidence on this topic., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)