ARISTOTLE
(2011)Objective
To compare the efficacy and safety of apixaban versus warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Study Summary
Intervention
Apixaban 5 mg BID (2.5 mg in select patients) vs. warfarin (INR 2.0–3.0), double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial. Median follow-up: 1.8 years.
Inclusion Criteria
Atrial fibrillation or flutter with at least one additional risk factor for stroke: age ≥75, prior stroke/TIA/systemic embolism, symptomatic heart failure within the previous 3 months or LVEF ≤40%, diabetes mellitus, or hypertension requiring pharmacologic treatment.
Study Design
Arms: Apixaban vs. Warfarin
Patients per Arm: Apixaban: 9120, Warfarin: 9081
Outcome
Bottom Line
Apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke/systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and reduced mortality.
Major Points
- Largest DOAC vs warfarin trial: 18,201 patients with AF and ≥1 stroke risk factor randomized at 1,034 clinical sites in 39 countries.
- Triple benefit: apixaban was superior for efficacy (stroke/SE: 1.27% vs 1.60%/yr, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66–0.95, P=0.01), superior for safety (major bleeding: 2.13% vs 3.09%/yr, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60–0.80, P<0.001), and reduced all-cause mortality (3.52% vs 3.94%/yr, HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80–0.998, P=0.047).
- Hemorrhagic stroke reduced by 49% (0.24% vs 0.47%/yr, HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35–0.75, P<0.001). Ischemic or uncertain type of stroke rates were similar (0.97% vs 1.05%/yr, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74–1.13, P=0.42).
- Dose reduction criteria: apixaban 2.5 mg BID if ≥2 of: age ≥80, weight ≤60 kg, creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL (~4.7% of patients received the reduced dose).
- Double-dummy design: patients received either apixaban + warfarin-placebo or warfarin + apixaban-placebo, with sham INR monitoring to maintain blinding.
- Mean CHADS2 score was 2.1; ~19% had prior stroke/TIA/SE. Median TTR for warfarin arm was 66.0% (mean 62.2%).
- Paper conclusion: in patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial
- Randomization
- Yes
- Blinding
- Double-blind
- Sample Size
- 18201
- Follow-up
- Median 1.8 years
- Centers
- 1034
- Countries
- North America, Latin America, Europe, Asian Pacific
Primary Outcome
Definition: Stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or systemic embolism
| Control | Intervention | HR/OR | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.60%/year (265 events) | 1.27%/year (212 events) | 0.79 (0.66–0.95) | 0.01 for superiority; <0.001 for noninferiority |
Limitations & Criticisms
- Median follow-up 1.8 years — limited data on very long-term safety and efficacy.
- Excluded recent stroke (within 7 days) — acute-phase efficacy not directly tested.
- Excluded severe renal impairment (CrCl <25 mL/min or creatinine >2.5 mg/dL) — safety in dialysis patients unknown.
- Warfarin arm median TTR was 66% (mean 62%) — reasonable but not optimal. Sites with excellent TTR may see smaller advantage for apixaban.
- No reversal agent was available during the trial (andexanet alfa approved later in 2018).
- ~31% of patients used concomitant aspirin — may confound bleeding comparisons.
- Industry-funded (Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer) — sponsors of apixaban.
- Ischemic or uncertain type of stroke rates were similar between groups (HR 0.92, P=0.42) — superiority was primarily driven by hemorrhagic stroke reduction.
- Risk stratification used CHADS2 (range 1–6), not the more contemporary CHA2DS2-VASc score; limited data on patients with very low CHADS2 (score of 1, ~34% of cohort) where treatment benefit may not outweigh bleeding risk.
Citation
Granger CB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):981–992.