Key result
DOACs dominate non-valvular AF prescribing, but ~49% of reduced-dose regimens are potentially inappropriate.
Why the study?
Real-world oral anticoagulant prescribing patterns and DOAC dosing appropriateness in low- and middle-income countries remain poorly characterized.
What are the real-world prescribing patterns, clinical determinants of selection, and dosing appropriateness of DOACs versus VKAs in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=209)
No
What are the real-world prescribing patterns, clinical determinants of selection, and dosing appropriateness of DOACs versus VKAs in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 77% vs 23%
While DOACs are widely prescribed for NVAF in this Vietnamese tertiary center, nearly half of reduced-dose DOAC prescriptions are potentially inappropriate, highlighting a critical need for dose optimization and monitoring.
Potentially inappropriate DOAC reductions remain common in NVAF; leaves open whether targeted interventions improve dosing in Asian cohorts.
Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, real-world prescribing patterns and dosing appropriateness in low- and middle-income countries remain poorly characterized. This study evaluated patterns of oral anticoagulant use and identified clinical determinants of suboptimal prescribing in a tertiary cardiovascular center in Vietnam. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of 209 patients with NVAF who received oral anticoagulation at a tertiary cardiovascular center between 2023 and 2024. Data were extracted from electronic medical records, including demographics, comorbidities, renal function, bleeding history, and prescribed anticoagulants. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with anticoagulant selection, defined as DOAC versus VKA use. DOAC dosing appropriateness was assessed according to the 2021 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide, and predictors of potentially inappropriate dose reduction were evaluated. Results DOACs were prescribed in 77.0% of patients, most commonly rivaroxaban, which accounted for 55.3% of all anticoagulant prescriptions. VKAs were prescribed in 23.0% of patients. Among VKA users, 85.4% had INR values outside the therapeutic range at admission, largely due to subtherapeutic international normalized ratio values. Reduced DOAC doses were prescribed in 88 of 161 DOAC users (54.7%). Among 85 assessable reduced-dose DOAC users, 42 (49.4%) were classified as having potentially inappropriate dose reduction. In the parsimonious multivariable model, age ≥ 75 years was associated with higher odds of DOAC use (odds ratio [OR] 5.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95–13.23; p = 0.001), whereas female sex (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.21–0.91; p = 0.027), heart failure (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.09–0.59; p = 0.002), and prior bleeding (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.05–0.87; p = 0.031) were associated with lower odds of DOAC use. Conclusion In this single-center retrospective study from Vietnam, oral anticoagulant prescribing in patients with NVAF showed several areas for optimization, including frequent INR values outside the therapeutic range at admission among VKA users and frequent potentially inappropriate DOAC dose reduction. These findings support the need for improved dose optimization, and monitoring strategies, but should be interpreted cautiously give the observational design and inpatients data source.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoang et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=209). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) was evaluated on Prescription rate. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were prescribed to 77.0% of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, but 49.4% of those on reduced doses had potentially inappropriate dose reductions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: