Key result
Rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran linked to up to ~52% higher bleeding risk versus apixaban.
Why the study?
Differences in DOAC bleeding risk may stem from molecule-specific drug-target interactions, warranting evaluation of real-world bleeding outcomes complemented by molecular docking analyses.
Does rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or edoxaban increase the risk of bleeding compared to apixaban in adult patients requiring oral anticoagulation?
Cohort (n=5,721)
No
Does rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or edoxaban increase the risk of bleeding compared to apixaban in adult patients requiring oral anticoagulation?
In a real-world cohort, apixaban demonstrated a significantly lower risk of bleeding compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban, a finding supported by in silico molecular docking showing its highly stable binding to factor Xa.
Apixaban was associated with lowest bleeding risk among DOACs; leaves open whether molecule-specific interactions explain differences in prospective trials.
Background Differences in bleeding risk among direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may reflect not only exposure-related factors but also molecule-specific drug–target interaction characteristics. This study aimed to evaluate real-world bleeding outcomes and to complement these findings with molecular docking analyses as supportive, hypothesis-generating mechanistic context for safety differences among factor Xa inhibitors and a direct thrombin inhibitor. Methods A retrospective cohort of 5,721 patients treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, or dabigatran was analyzed using real-world clinical data. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, non–life-threatening complications, life-threatening hemorrhagic events, and overall bleeding outcomes were systematically compared. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify independent predictors of bleeding, with apixaban as the reference agent. Molecular docking analyses were performed using AutoDock 4.2.6 to assess comparative binding energy profiles, hydrogen bond interactions, and root-mean-square deviation values between each DOAC and factor Xa or thrombin. Results Life-threatening bleeding occurred in 3.1% of patients, while any bleeding event was observed in 13.5% of the cohort. Compared with apixaban, rivaroxaban (OR 1.52), dabigatran (OR 1.29), and edoxaban (OR 1.44) were independently associated with higher odds of bleeding. Advanced age and renal dysfunction were identified as additional independent predictors. Docking analyses indicated that apixaban exhibited the lowest docking-derived binding energy toward factor Xa (ΔG = −14.46 kcal/mol), whereas dabigatran showed selective interaction with thrombin (ΔG = −11.91 kcal/mol). These molecular findings are exploratory and hypothesis-generating and should be interpreted as supportive mechanistic context rather than direct predictors of clinical outcomes. Conclusion In this retrospective cohort, apixaban was associated with a comparatively lower observed bleeding risk compared with other DOAC agents. Docking findings provide exploratory, hypothesis-generating mechanistic context that may help to contextualize observed clinical patterns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Onar et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Patients requiring oral anticoagulation (e.g., atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism) (n=5,721). Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban was evaluated on Occurrence of any bleeding event during follow-up (composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding) (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.28-1.81, p=<0.001). Compared with apixaban, the use of rivaroxaban (OR 1.52), edoxaban (OR 1.44), and dabigatran (OR 1.29) were independently associated with higher odds of any bleeding event in real-world practice.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: