Key result
Individual pharmacogenomic variants in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, and ABCG2 were not associated with clinically relevant bleeding in rivaroxaban-treated patients.
Why the study?
The association between specific polymorphisms in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, and ABCG2 and bleeding or occlusive events in patients receiving rivaroxaban in real-world clinical practice required evaluation.
Do pharmacogenomic variants in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, and ABCG2 predict bleeding or occlusive events in adults receiving rivaroxaban?
Case-Control (n=385)
No
Do pharmacogenomic variants in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, and ABCG2 predict bleeding or occlusive events in adults receiving rivaroxaban?
Routine pharmacogenomic testing for CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, and ABCG2 variants is not supported to guide rivaroxaban dosing, as traditional clinical risk factors like age and gastrointestinal comorbidity are the dominant predictors of bleeding.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support routine pharmacogenomic testing for rivaroxaban; leaves open variant effects in larger prospective cohorts.
Aim: To evaluate associations between polymorphisms in CYP3A4 (*1B, *22), CYP3A5 (*3), CYP2J2 (*7, rs11572325), ABCB1 (c.1236C>T, c.2677G>T/A, c.3435C>T, rs4148738) and ABCG2 (c.421C>A) and the occurrence of bleeding or occlusive events in patients receiving rivaroxaban in real-world clinical practice. Methods: A nested case-control study, divided into two substudies (bleeding and thromboembolic events), was conducted within a prospective cohort of 385 adults receiving rivaroxaban at University Hospital Centre Zagreb (September 2021–September 2024). Bleeding events were classified per ISTH criteria, and genotyping was performed using TaqMan real-time PCR. Cases and controls were balanced using entropy balancing, and associations were estimated with Bayesian logistic regression under a skeptical prior N(0, 0.355); LASSO regression was used to identify clinical and genetic predictors of outcomes. Results: In total, 71 patients (18.4%) experienced bleeding events, most frequently gastrointestinal (47.9%), while 314 patients served as controls. No pharmacogenomic variant showed a clear association with bleeding risk (raw and balanced odds ratios 0.80–1.35; 95% credible intervals crossing 1.0). LASSO regression identified age (OR 2.00 per decade), gastrointestinal comorbidity (OR 8.77), and eGFR as the dominant predictors of bleeding. Twenty-one patients experienced occlusive events (15 venous, 6 arterial); however, the low event count precluded meaningful pharmacogenomic analysis. Conclusions: Individual pharmacogenomic variants in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, and ABCG2 together with pharmacogenetic-based phenotypes were not associated with clinically relevant bleeding in rivaroxaban-treated patients. Traditional clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and gastrointestinal comorbidity, remain the dominant determinants of adverse outcomes. Routine pharmacogenomic testing to guide rivaroxaban dosing is not currently supported.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Slišković et al. (2026) conducted a case-control in Patients receiving rivaroxaban (n=385). Pharmacogenomic variants (CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, ABCG2) vs. Wild-type genotypes was evaluated on Bleeding events (OR 0.80-1.35, 95% CI crossing 1.0). Individual pharmacogenomic variants in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2J2, ABCB1, and ABCG2 were not associated with clinically relevant bleeding in rivaroxaban-treated patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: