Key result
In elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, under-dosing of direct oral anticoagulants was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR 1.41) compared to standard dosing, without reducing major bleeding.
Why the study?
The study assessed the prevalence and factors associated with DOAC under-dosing and examined the relationship between DOAC dosing and clinical outcomes in elderly NVAF patients.
Does inappropriate low dosing (under-dose or off-label dose) of DOACs improve clinical outcomes compared to standard dosing in elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=18,497)
Yes
Does inappropriate low dosing (under-dose or off-label dose) of DOACs improve clinical outcomes compared to standard dosing in elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 1.41 (95% CI 1.11–1.8)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.38% vs 1.46%
In elderly Japanese patients with NVAF, inappropriate under-dosing of DOACs did not reduce bleeding risk but was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared to standard dosing.
Under-dosing of DOACs was associated with higher mortality without safety gains; leaves open whether optimized dosing improves outcomes in elderly NVAF.
BACKGROUND: This sub-analysis of the ANAFIE Registry, a prospective, observational study of >30,000 Japanese non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients aged ≥75 years, assessed the prevalence of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) under-dose prevalence, identified the factors of under-dose prescriptions, and examined the relationship between DOAC dose and clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients, divided into 5 groups by DOAC dose (standard, over-, reduced, under-, and off-label), were analyzed for background factors, cumulative incidences, and clinical outcome risk. Endpoints were stroke/systemic embolic events (SEE), major bleeding, and all-cause death during the 2-year follow-up. Of 18,497 patients taking DOACs, 20.7%, 3.8%, 51.6%, 19.6%, and 4.3%, were prescribed standard, over-, reduced, under-, and off-label doses. Factors associated with under-dose use were female sex, age ≥85 years, reduced creatinine clearance, history of major bleeding, polypharmacy, antiplatelet agents, heart failure, dementia, and no history of catheter ablation or cerebrovascular disease. After confounder adjustment, under-dose vs. standard dose was not associated with the incidence of stroke/SEE or major bleeding but was associated with a higher mortality rate. Patients receiving an off-label dose showed similar tendencies to those receiving an under-dose; that is, they showed the highest mortality rates for stroke/SEE, major bleeding, and all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate low DOAC doses (under- or off-label dose) were not associated with stroke/SEE or major bleeding but were associated with all-cause death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akao et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=18,497). DOAC under-dose vs. Standard dose was evaluated on All-cause death (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.11-1.80). In elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, under-dosing of direct oral anticoagulants was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR 1.41) compared to standard dosing, without reducing major bleeding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: