Why the study?
This study aimed to evaluate prescriber compliance to approved labels of DOACs and assess the impact of dosing appropriateness on clinical outcomes.
Does inappropriate DOAC dosing increase the risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events in adult patients?
Does inappropriate DOAC dosing increase the risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events in adult patients?
Approximately one-third of DOAC prescriptions were inconsistently dosed, with underdosing significantly increasing thromboembolic risk and overdosing significantly increasing bleeding risk.
Dosing deviations were associated with higher thromboembolism and bleeding risks; leaves open whether label adherence improves outcomes prospectively.
AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the prescriber compliance to the approved labels of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and impact of appropriateness of dosing on clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using simple-stratified random sampling of adult patients receiving ≥6 months of DOACs for various indications during 2013-2017 in 10 tertiary care hospitals. Patients were classified into 3 dosing groups including approved dose, underdosing and overdosing based on the Thai Food and Drug Administration-approved labels. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the impact of different dosings on thromboembolic and bleeding events. RESULTS: From 1200 patients included in the data analysis, prescribing of DOACs was consistent with the approved indications in 1130 cases (94.2%) while 70 patients (5.8%) received DOACs despite having contraindications or with off-label usage. Among 1026 cases of dosing evaluation cohort, 688 patients (67.1%) received approved doses. There were 227 (21.9%) and 110 (10.7%) cases of underdosing and overdosing, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that underdosing was associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism 3.023 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.291-7.080; P = .011) while overdosing was associated with an increased risk of bleeding requiring hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.045; 95% CI, 1.501-6.178; P = .002) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or more (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.196; 95% CI, 1.083-4.452; P = .029). CONCLUSION: Prescribers' compliance to approved indications were high. However, 1/3 of DOAC prescriptions were inconsistent with approved dosing. Dosing deviation was associated with an increase in adverse clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wattanaruengchai et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: