Key result
Rivaroxaban is linked to ~43% higher risk of adverse renal outcomes than dabigatran in NVAF.
Why the study?
NOACs elicit better renal outcomes than warfarin in non-valvular AF, but differences in renal outcomes among individual NOACs remain unclear.
Does the choice of NOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) affect renal outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=1,153)
No
Does the choice of NOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) affect renal outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Effect estimate: HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.20-1.70)
p-value: p=< 0.001
Among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, rivaroxaban is associated with worse renal outcomes compared to dabigatran, highlighting differences in renal safety profiles among individual NOACs.
Renal safety differences among NOACs should not yet alter prescribing in non-valvular AF; hypothesis-generating data require prospective validation.
Objective: Oral anticoagulation is recommended for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) elicit better renal outcomes than warfarin. However, the differences among individual NOACs remain unclear. In this study, 3 commercially available NOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban were compared in terms of renal outcomes. Methods: By December 31, 2017, a search of a database of the New Territories West Cluster of the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong, China identified patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation taking 1 of the 3 NOACs. Three cohorts (rivaroxaban vs . dabigatran, apixaban vs . dabigatran, and apixaban vs . rivaroxaban) were set up for comparison, and inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Patients were tracked until drug discontinuation or June 30, 2019 (study end date), whichever came first. The primary endpoint included a combination of a greater than 30% decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, acute kidney injury, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal failure. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for survival analysis. Results: A total of 1,153 patients were included in the analyses. Rivaroxaban was associated with a higher incidence of the primary endpoint compared to dabigatran (hazard ratio: 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.20–1.70, P < 0.001). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk compared to rivaroxaban in the analysis of the subgroup of patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 60 mL/(min·1.73 m 2 ) (hazard ratio: 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.31–0.94, P = 0.010). No significant differences were observed between dabigatran and apixaban. Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was associated with worse renal outcomes compared to dabigatran in the main cohort and compared to apixaban in the subgroup analysis. Variations in renal outcomes exist among the NOACs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yik Ching Hung (2025) conducted a cohort in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=1,153). Rivaroxaban vs. Dabigatran and Apixaban was evaluated on Combination of a greater than 30% decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, acute kidney injury, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal failure (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.20-1.70, p=< 0.001). Rivaroxaban was associated with a higher incidence of adverse renal outcomes compared to dabigatran (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.70; P<0.001) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: