Why the study?
Non-standard doses of DOACs are commonly used in routine clinical practice for patients with AF, but data on their clinical outcomes are limited.
Does non-standard dosing (under or over-dosing) of DOACs affect clinical outcomes compared to on-label dosing in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does non-standard dosing (under or over-dosing) of DOACs affect clinical outcomes compared to on-label dosing in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Over-dosing of DOACs in atrial fibrillation is associated with worse efficacy and safety outcomes, whereas under-dosing has similar stroke and bleeding risks but higher mortality compared to on-label dosing.
Under-dosing of DOACs shows comparable outcomes except higher mortality while over-dosing increases stroke, bleeding, and death risks; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Background: In routine clinical practice, non-standard doses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are commonly used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on the clinical outcomes of non-standard doses of DOACs are limited. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from their inception until 30 June 2020 for studies that reported the effectiveness or safety outcomes of non-standard doses of DOACs compared with on-label doses of DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation. Non-standard doses of DOACs were defined as under or over-dose of DOACs based on the recommended standard doses in drug labels. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence interval (95% confidence interval). Subgroup analyses were conducted according to individual DOACs and different geographic regions. Results: Ten articles involving 148,909 patients with AF were included. There were no significant differences between under-dosing and on-label dosing with respect to stroke/systematic embolism (HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.93–1.09), major bleeding (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.77–1.19), intracranial haemorrhage (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.74–1.40), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.82–1.39), and myocardial infarction (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.89–1.25), except for an increased risk of death (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.01–1.73). We observed a significant association between over-dosing of DOACs and increased risk of stroke/systematic embolism (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.04–1.32), major bleeding (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.03–1.29), and death (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03–1.38) compared with on-label dosing. Furthermore, over-dosing of DOACs increased the risk of stroke/systematic embolism (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.00–1.33) and major bleeding events (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00–1.37) in Asian patients. Conclusion: A reduced dose of DOACs might be safely and effectively used in clinical practice, especially in Asian patients, whereas high-dose DOACs might not be well tolerated by Asian patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: