Why the study?
Off-label NOAC doses are used in East Asia due to bleeding concerns, but their efficacy remains controversial.
Does off-label low-dose NOAC therapy reduce stroke and thromboembolism events compared to standard dose anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does off-label low-dose NOAC therapy reduce stroke and thromboembolism events compared to standard dose anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Off-label underdosing of NOACs in East Asian patients with atrial fibrillation is associated with increased stroke risk without a significant reduction in major bleeding compared to standard dosing.
Off-label Asian NOAC doses showed no stroke benefit in East Asian AF; hypothesis-generating and leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Background: For anticoagulation therapy of atrial fibrillation (AF) in east Asia, some off-label dose, so called “Asian Dose” of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) was used concerning on the bleeding risks in these patients, such as low-dose rivaroxaban (10-15 mg once daily) or dabigatran (110-150 mg once daily). However, the efficacy of the off-label dose of NOACs remains controversial. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compared the efficacy and safety among patients with AF in three groups: patients with the off-label dose of NOACs treatment (OFL group, dabigatran 110 mg once daily or rivaroxaban under 20 mg daily), patients with the standard dose of anti-coagulation therapy (SAG group, dabigatran 110 mg twice daily or rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, or warfarin with international normalized ratio (INR) 2-3), and patients without non-coagulation treatment (NCG group) in east China. Results: A total of 296 patients were recruited in our study. Compared to patients in SAG group, patients in OFL group had higher risk in stroke and thromboembolism events (P=0.000). The risk of other events including major bleeding (P=0.597) was comparable in these two groups, while there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality, which were both dramatically lower than NAG group (0.52, P=0.000). Conclusions: Collectively, our results demonstrate that “Asian dose” of NOACs indeed can not bring much benefit for AF patients in east China.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: