ArticleClinical interventions in aging2025
Real-World Comparative Study of Ultra-Low-Dose Rivaroxaban in Very Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optimal dosing of rivaroxaban in very elderly (≥80 years) nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients remains debated, particularly concerning ultra-low-dose (5 mg daily) regimens derived from clinician judgement. This study aimed to describe real-world comparative outcomes associated with these clinician-selected dosing regimens. Methods: The study included 1389 very elderly nonvalvular AF patients (≥80 years) who received rivaroxaban between January 2018 and December 2022, with 373, 604, and 412 patients receiving 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15/20 mg daily, respectively. Baseline characteristics were balanced using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The outcomes included composite efficacy outcomes (stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death) and major bleeding. Subgroup analysis and plasma trough level comparisons were conducted to further assess consistency and pharmacokinetics. Results: The composite efficacy event rates were 9.3%, 6.6%, and 7.0% for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15/20 mg groups, respectively. After IPTW, there was no statistically significant difference in composite efficacy outcomes between three groups (HR for 10 mg vs 5 mg: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.44-1.15; HR for 15/20 mg vs 5 mg: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.52-1.59). However, major bleeding occurred in 1.6%, 3.6%, and 6.1% of patients, exhibited a dose-dependent increase. The 15/20 mg group had a 4.27-fold higher risk compared to the 5 mg group (HR: 4.27, 95% CI: 1.66-10.97), while the 10 mg group showed no significant elevation (HR: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.82-5.40). Subgroup analysis confirmed consistent efficacy and safety trends across specified subgroups. Plasma trough concentrations were significantly higher in the 15/20 mg group compared to the 5 mg group, with no significant difference between the 10 mg and 5 mg groups. Conclusion: In very elderly AF patients, ultra-low-dose rivaroxaban (5 mg daily) provided comparable efficacy to higher doses while significantly reducing major bleeding. This regimen may be a balanced option for high-risk elderly populations.
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.