In general, atrial fibrillation is related to an increase in the likelihood of ischemic stroke by a four to five factor. In addition to it, it accounts for approximately fifteen percent of strokes in individuals of all ages while thirty percent in people of more than the age of eighty years. The utilisation of antagonists of vitamin K is quite efficient for the prevention of stroke in patients who are suffering from nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and it is recommended for people who are at the risk of it. It is, however, important to note that drug and food interactions need frequent dose adjustments and coagulation monitoring, requirements which serve to make it quite tough for many people to utilise such drugs. Thus, this study compares warfarin and rivaroxaban in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Type of Study of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin

In order to carry out this research, primary method of research was considered. For instance, patients suffering from nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were recruited who were at high to moderate risk of experiencing a stroke. In addition to it, patients were assigned randomly to receive a specific rivaroxaban or warfarin dose. In each group, patients received a tablet of placebo as well for the maintenance of blinding. Using an automated and computerised voice-response system, randomisation was carried out. Similarly, a device was utilised for generating encrypted values that were delivered to an independent monitor that offered sites with sham values of real INR values. Sham results were created through the means of an authentic algorithm that reflected value distribution in patients treated with warfarin with characteristics similar to the characteristics in the study participants.

Control Aim of Study of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin

The control aim of the study is to determine whether warfarin is more effective in the treatment of atrial fibrillation or rivaroxaban is more effective in the treatment of patients suffering from atrial fibrillation.

Hazard Ratio of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin

In general, hazard ratio refers to the rates of hazards corresponding to the patient’s conditions described by two variables. For instance, if there are two groups and patients in the second group are dying twice as fast as those in the first group then it would mean that the hazard ratio of second group is 2. For this study, hazard ratio was more than just a little important because it determined which method of treatment was more effective in saving lives and not harming the patients.

Main Conclusions of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin

In the study, it has been determined that the utilisation of warfarin decreases the ischemic stroke’s risk but it needs more dose adjustments and frequent monitoring. Meanwhile, rivaroxaban that is an oral Xa factor inhibitor might offer more predictable and consistent anticoagulation than warfarin.

What is “non-inferiority” and why was this important in this study?

Non-inferiority studies are related to the medical term with the increasing frequency that must be introduced with the intent of such ready to give negative result. The information is required to clinical assess to get in on Infinity, trailed in the highlighted context of the study. The rationale for woman of Non-inferiority Trail is regulatory setting to efficiency of the new treatment that is usually shown in the control of the trail, such as a different kind of situation. It is significant to use non Infinity in the selected study areas to investigate such kinds of problems in the research. In order to loot resetting, there are formal methods that are used to check the clinical and medical staff to increase the efficiency of the acceptable potential benefit in the treatments of the disease. Every method of non-inferiority is related to the incorporation of the historical study about the specific disease to treat the patients and the medical requirements.