Why the study?
Real-world atrial fibrillation patients are more diverse than clinical trial populations, and rivaroxaban could be safer and more effective with increased dosing precision across renal function extremes.
Does a precision dosing strategy for rivaroxaban based on creatinine clearance maintain drug exposure within target limits in real-world atrial fibrillation patients?
Does a precision dosing strategy for rivaroxaban based on creatinine clearance maintain drug exposure within target limits in real-world atrial fibrillation patients?
A pharmacokinetic modeling study proposes new, more granular renal-based dosing regimens for rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation to maintain optimal drug exposure across a wide range of renal function.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Proposed rivaroxaban CrCl-banded dosing may optimize exposure in diverse real-world AF patients; leaves open need for prospective outcome trials.
Rivaroxaban is a direct-acting oral anticoagulant approved to prevent strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation. Dosage recommendations are approved for all adult patients to receive either 15 mg or 20 mg once daily depending upon renal function. There are a number of reasons to believe rivaroxaban dosing could be more effective and/or safer for more patients if increased dosing precision is available. Because real-world patients are more diverse than those studied in phase III clinical trials, we evaluated the extremes of creatinine clearance (CrCl) on rivaroxaban clearance using a published population pharmacokinetic model and applying exposure variation limits (±20%) based on published literature. The proposed dosing recommendations are 10 mg once daily (CrCl 15-29 ml/min), 15 mg once daily (CrCl 30-69 ml/min), 10 mg twice daily (CrCl 70-159 ml/min), and 15 mg twice daily (CrCl 160-250 ml/min). These new dosing recommendations should be prospectively tested for predictive accuracy and to assess the impact on AF patient efficacy and safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Konicki et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: