↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin or dabigatran for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin or dabigatran for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12872-017-0672-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Faye L. Norby, Lindsay G.S. Bengtson, Pamela L. Lutsey, Lin Y. Chen, Richard F. MacLehose, Alanna M. Chamberlain, Ian Rapson, Alvaro Alonso

Abstract

Rivaroxaban is an oral anticoagulant approved in the US for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We determined the effectiveness and associated risks of rivaroxaban versus other oral anticoagulants in a large real-world population. We selected NVAF patients initiating oral anticoagulant use in 2010-2014 enrolled in MarketScan databases. Rivaroxaban users were matched with warfarin and dabigatran users by age, sex, enrolment date, anticoagulant initiation date, and high-dimensional propensity score. Study endpoints, including ischemic stroke, intracranial bleeding (ICB), myocardial infarction (MI), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, were identified from inpatient diagnostic codes. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess associations between type of anticoagulant and outcomes. The analysis included 44,340 rivaroxaban users matched to 89,400 warfarin and 16,957 dabigatran users (38% female, mean age 70) with 12 months of mean follow-up. Anticoagulant-naïve rivaroxaban initiators, but not those switching from warfarin, had lower risk of ischemic stroke [hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.75 (0.62, 0.91)] and ICB [HR (95%CI): 0.55, (0.39, 0.78)] than warfarin users. In contrast, anticoagulant-experienced rivaroxaban initiators had higher risk of GI bleeding than warfarin users [HR (95%CI): 1.55 (1.32, 1.83)]. Endpoint rates were similar when comparing anticoagulant-naïve rivaroxaban and dabigatran initiators, with the exception of higher GI bleeding risk in rivaroxaban users [HR (95%CI) 1.28 (1.06, 1.54)]. There were no significant differences in the risk of MI among the comparison groups. In this large real-world sample of NVAF patients, effectiveness and risks of rivaroxaban versus warfarin differed by prior anticoagulant status, while effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus dabigatran differed in GI bleeding risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Other 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Chemistry 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 43 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,193,390
of 24,122,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#726
of 1,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,883
of 319,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#19
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,122,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,774 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.