Abstract:The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) are first-line anticoagulants for many patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE).[1] [2] This is due to their efficacy, safety profile, ease of administration, lack of a routine laboratory monitoring, and limited food or drug interactions. The landmark clinical trials that led to their approval showed generally high rates of mediation adherence.[3] Of course, taking anticoagulants as directed (medication adherence) is critical to realizing the beneficial results seen in studies.[4] However, it is uncertain if the high rates of adherence seen in a clinical trial population will be realized in actual clinical practice. Specific to DOAC therapy, it is uncertain if patients with low time in the therapeutic range (TTR) and high levels of international normalized ratio (INR) variability while on vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy are better served by transitioning to a DOAC, in large part due to questions of medication adherence. There have been concerns that adherence and persistence may be lower in this group with mixed study results to date.[5] [6] [7] [8] In this issue of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Elling et al reported a retrospective cohort study of 437 patients anticoagulated for any indication, switching from VKAs to DOACs from 2012 to 2019.[9] Medication adherence was evaluated by proportion of days covered by an anticoagulant prescription. Of this cohort, nearly 70% had VKA TTRs under 70%. However, this was not associated with subsequent good DOAC adherence (defined as >90% adherence), which was high for most patients (∼80%). Poor INR control (low TTR, high time under the therapeutic range, or high INR variability) while on a VKA was also not associated with lower persistence on DOACs compared to patients with better INR control. The results suggest that poor INR control should not dissuade clinicians from transitioning patients from a VKA to a DOAC. However, the study has notable limitations, including the potential for confounding and misclassification.[9] These issues are common in studies relying on prescription claims or fill data. The study was also small and may not capture important subgroups. Finally, the reason for poor INR control is not well described. Received: 08 May 2024 Accepted: 13 May 2024 Article published online: 01 June 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Calculation of Atomic Energy Levels and Spectra

Vitamin K antagonist anticoagulation in the antiphospholipid syndrome: time in therapeutic range and clinical outcomes

Consequences of the Poor Anticoagulation Control of Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Vitamin K Antagonists

Intracerebral haemorrhage in patients taking different types of oral anticoagulants: a pooled individual patient data analysis from two national stroke registries

Effectiveness of a self-management program for anticoagulated patients to improve their knowledge about treatment and time in therapeutic range

Chemotherapy of testicular cancer: 10-year experience.

Are the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Better for Patients with Low Time in the Therapeutic Range on Vitamin K Antagonist Therapy?

Estimating Vitamin K Antagonist Anticoagulation Benefit in People With Atrial Fibrillation Accounting for Competing Risks: Evidence From 12 Randomized Trials

Changes in Oral Anticoagulation Therapy over One Year in 51,000 Atrial Fibrillation Patients at Risk for Stroke: A Practice-Derived Study

Effect of Some Risk Factors on Over-Anticoagulation Disorders and Bleeding in Patients Receiving Anticoagulant Therapy with Overdosage of Vitamin K Antagonist

Clinical Course and Management of Patients with Emergency Surgery Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants or Vitamin K Antagonists—Results of the German Prospective RADOA-Registry

Anticoagulation use and the risk of stroke and major bleeding in patients on hemodialysis: From the VIVALDI, a population‐based prospective cohort study

Effect of impaired kidney function on outcomes and treatment effects of oral anticoagulant regimes in patients with atrial fibrillation in a real-world registry

Direct oral anticoagulants and therapeutic adherence: do not let your guard down

Gut Microbiota and the Quality of Oral Anticoagulation in Vitamin K Antagonists Users: A Review of Potential Implications

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndromes: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Associations with anticoagulation: a cross-sectional registry-based analysis of stroke survivors with atrial fibrillation

Relation of the ‘Atrial Fibrillation Better Care (ABC) Pathway’ to the Quality of Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Taking Vitamin K Antagonists

Anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists after recent ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

Patient perspectives on taking vitamin K antagonists: a qualitative study in the UK, USA and Spain