Why the study?
Data on the safety and effectiveness of once-daily versus twice-daily DOACs compared with VKAs and to one another in patients with AF and recent stroke are scarce.
Does once-daily or twice-daily DOAC reduce the composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause death compared to VKA or each other in patients with atrial fibrillation and recent stroke?
Does once-daily or twice-daily DOAC reduce the composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause death compared to VKA or each other in patients with atrial fibrillation and recent stroke?
In patients with atrial fibrillation and recent stroke, both once-daily and twice-daily DOACs appear to have a similar risk-benefit profile, which is generally favorable compared to vitamin K antagonists.
May support DOAC preference over VKA after stroke in AF; leaves open dosing frequency effects pending randomized confirmation.
Background: Data on the safety and effectiveness of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in comparison to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and to one another in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and recent stroke are scarce. Patients and methods: Based on prospectively obtained data from the observational registry Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-in-Ischemic-Stroke-Patients(NOACISP)-LONGTERM (NCT03826927) from Basel, Switzerland, we compared the occurrence of the primary outcome - the composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause death - among consecutive AF patients treated with either VKA, QD DOAC, or BID DOAC following a recent stroke using Cox proportional hazards regression including adjustment for potential confounders. Results: We analyzed 956 patients (median age 80 years, 46% female), of whom 128 received VKA (13.4%), 264 QD DOAC (27.6%), and 564 BID DOAC (59%). Over a total follow-up of 1596 patient-years, both QD DOAC and BID DOAC showed a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared to VKA (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.69 [0.48, 1.01] and 0.66 [0.47, 0.91], respectively). Upon direct comparison, the hazard for the composite outcome did not differ between patients treated with QD versus BID DOAC (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.94 [0.70, 1.26]). Secondary analyses focusing on the individual components of the composite outcome revealed no clear differences in the risk-benefit profile of QD versus BID DOAC. Discussion and conclusion: The overall benefit of DOAC over VKA seems to apply to both QD and BID DOAC in AF patients with a recent stroke, without clear evidence that one DOAC dosing regimen is more advantageous than the other.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Polymeris et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: