ArticlePharmacy practice
Clinical Associations with the differences in rivaroxaban dosing in patients with atrial fibrillation stratified by three renal function formulae.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical trials used Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula to calculate the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in order to dose rivaroxaban for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate rivaroxaban dosing appropriateness in patients with AF with or without renal impairment based on the CG formula and other formulae, including Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation and the isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) traceable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation and the associated clinical outcomes. Methodology: A retrospective cohort study conducted at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital (SQUH) from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2020, included all adult patients (≥ 18 years) treated with rivaroxaban for AF and followed up for one year after starting the treatment. Results: Based on the CG formula, the rivaroxaban dose was inappropriately prescribed in 27% of the patients (21% overdosed and 6% underdosed). Higher baseline creatinine (P=0.0014) and concurrent use of antiplatelet therapy (P<0.001) were associated with the tendency to rivaroxaban overdosing. Higher Body Mass Index (BMI) (P=0.002), female sex (P=0.032), and CKD (P=0.003) were associated with rivaroxaban underdosing. The degree of agreement between the renal function tests when comparing MDRD vs CG and CKD-EPI vs CG in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate/creatine clearance (eGFR/CrCl) calculation was moderate (κ=0.46) and poor (κ=0.00), respectively, while, in terms of rivaroxaban dose appropriateness was almost perfect (κ=0.82) and substantial (κ=0.77). Clinical outcomes measured by stroke and bleeding events were not significantly different according to the appropriateness of the rivaroxaban dose. Conclusion: This study has shown a relatively high consistency with the gold standard in dosing rivaroxaban in AF patients using CG formula. Treatment efficiency and safety were not affected by the proportion of dose inappropriateness found in this cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.