The myths behind DOAC measurement: Analyses of prescribing information from different regulatory bodies and a call for harmonization

Assessing Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Clinical Laboratory

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have significant advantages over vitamin K antagonists including lack of need for routine laboratory monitoring. However, assessment of DOAC effect and concentration may be important to guide clinical management including need for DOAC reversal, particularly in acute or emergent situations. In this manuscript, the authors describe tests to screen for DOAC presence and tests that have demonstrated equivalence to gold standard testing for quantifying DOAC exposure. They also discuss the effect of DOACs on other coagulation assays and strategies for monitoring unfractionated heparin in patients with concomitant DOAC exposure.

Performance of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) testing by hemostasis laboratories: The Australasian/Asia-Pacific experience

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reflect anticoagulation agents given to treat or prevent thrombosis, having largely replaced vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. DOACs are given in fixed daily doses and generally do not need monitoring. However, there may be a variety of reasons that justify measurement of plasma DOAC levels in individual patients.

METHODS

We report updated findings for DOAC testing in our geographic region, using recent data from the RCPAQAP, an international external quality assessment (EQA) program, currently with some 40-60 participants in each of the different DOAC (rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran) modules, to assess laboratory performance in this area. Data has been assessed for the past 5 years (2019-2023 inclusive), with 20 samples each per DOAC.

RESULTS

Data shows a limited repertoire of assays in use, and mostly consistency in reported numerical values when assessing proficiency samples. Available assays mostly comprised reagents from four manufacturing suppliers. There was good consistency across what participants identified as 'DOAC detected', but some variability when participants attempted to grade DOAC levels as low vs moderate vs high. Inter-laboratory/method coefficient of variation (CVs) were generally <15% for each DOAC, when present at >100 ng/mL.

CONCLUSION

We hope our findings, reflecting on mostly consistent reporting of DOAC levels and interpretation provides reassurance for clinicians requesting these measurements, and helps support their implementation in regions where there is a paucity of test availability.

Algorithm for Rapid Exclusion of Clinically Relevant Plasma Levels of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients Using the DOAC Dipstick: An Expert Consensus Paper

BACKGROUND

 With the widespread use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), there is an urgent need for a rapid assay to exclude clinically relevant plasma levels. Accurate and rapid determination of DOAC levels would guide medical decision-making to (1) determine the potential contribution of the DOAC to spontaneous or trauma-induced hemorrhage; (2) identify appropriate candidates for reversal, or (3) optimize the timing of urgent surgery or intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

 The DOAC Dipstick test uses a disposable strip to identify factor Xa- or thrombin inhibitors in a urine sample. Based on the results of a systematic literature search followed by an analysis of a simple pooling of five retrieved clinical studies, the test strip has a high sensitivity and an acceptably high negative predictive value when compared with levels measured with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry or calibrated chromogenic assays to reliably exclude plasma DOAC concentrations ≥30 ng/mL.

CONCLUSION

 Based on these data, a simple algorithm is proposed to enhance medical decision-making in acute care indications useful primarily in hospitals not having readily available quantitative tests and 24/7. This algorithm not only determines DOAC exposure but also differentiates between factor Xa and thrombin inhibitors to better guide clinical management.

Acute ischemic stroke and measurement of apixaban and rivaroxaban: an observational cohort implementation study

Background

Treatment with intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke is contraindicated with intake of apixaban/rivaroxaban in the last 48 hours. Recent European Stroke Organization guidelines suggest that thrombolysis can be considered if anti-factor Xa activity (AFXa) is <0.5 × 103 IU/L with low-molecular-weight (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) calibrated assays. Some centers also use apixaban/rivaroxaban-calibrated AFXa assays to identify patients with low drug concentrations.

Objectives

To prospectively evaluate the first year of implementation of drug-calibrated AFXa assays at our center with 2500 yearly admittances with suspected stroke.

Methods

Samples were analyzed on Sysmex CS-5100 instruments with Innovance anti-Xa reagents. Thrombolysis could be considered with drug concentrations <25 μg/L. Patients were registered in an institutionally approved quality register. Outcomes included (1) the number of patients receiving thrombolysis after drug measurement, (2) turn-around time for drug concentration measurements, and (3) sensitivity of LMWH/UFH AFXa to apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Results

Apixaban or rivaroxaban was measured in 148 samples, and 4 patients who previously would have been ineligible for thrombolysis were treated with thrombolysis. In total, thrombolysis was administered in 123 patient episodes in the study period. The median turn-around time for the drug measurements was 38 minutes. Apixaban concentrations of 25 μg/L and 50 μg/L corresponded to LMWH/UFH AFXa of 0.13 and 0.27 × 103 IU/L, respectively. There were too few rivaroxaban results for regression analysis.

Conclusion

Implementation of apixaban and rivaroxaban measurements led to a small increase in the number of patients receiving thrombolysis. Excluding significant concentrations of apixaban or rivaroxaban using LMWH/UFH AFXa may be feasible.

NAT2 phenotype alters pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban in healthy volunteers

Rivaroxaban is a direct inhibitor of factor Xa, a member of direct oral anticoagulant group of drugs (DOACs). Despite being a widely extended alternative to vitamin K antagonists (i.e., acenocoumarol, warfarin) the interindividual variability of DOACs is significant, and may be related to adverse drug reaction occurrence or drug inefficacy, namely hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events. Since there is not a consistent analytic practice to monitor the anticoagulant activity of DOACs, previously reported polymorphisms in genes coding for proteins responsible for the activation, transport, or metabolism of DOACs were studied. The study population comprised 60 healthy volunteers, who completed two randomized, crossover bioequivalence clinical trials between two different rivaroxaban formulations. The effect of food, sex, biogeographical origin and 55 variants (8 phenotypes and 47 single nucleotide polymorphisms) in drug metabolizing enzyme genes (such as CYP2D6, CYP2C9, NAT2) and transporters (namely, ABCB1, ABCG2) on rivaroxaban pharmacokinetics was tested. Individuals dosed under fasting conditions presented lower tmax (2.21 h vs 2.88 h, β = 1.19, R2 =0.342, p = 0.012) compared to fed volunteers. NAT2 slow acetylators presented higher AUC∞ corrected by dose/weight (AUC∞/DW; 8243.90 vs 7698.20 and 7161.25 h*ng*mg /ml*kg, β = 0.154, R2 =0.250, p = 0.044), higher Cmax/DW (1070.99 vs 834.81 and 803.36 ng*mg /ml*kg, β = 0.245, R2 =0.320, p = 0.002), and lower tmax (2.63 vs 3.19 and 4.15 h, β = -0.346, R2 =0.282, p = 0.047) than NAT2 rapid and intermediate acetylators. No other association was statistically significant. Thus, slow NAT2 appear to have altered rivaroxaban pharmacokinetics, increasing AUC∞ and Cmax. Nonetheless, further research should be conducted to verify NAT2 involvement on rivaroxaban pharmacokinetics and to determine its clinical significance.

The role of anticoagulation clinics needs to be reassessed to include follow up of patients on direct oral anticoagulants

A survey was carried out to assess the state of organization of care (including clinical and laboratory) delivered to patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) followed by clinics affiliated with the Italian Federation of Thrombosis Centers (FCSA), traditionally engaged to assist anticoagulated outpatients within the country. Participants were asked to answer questions concerning (i) proportion of patients on VKA-vs-DOAC and (ii) whether dedicated testing for DOAC is available. The proportion of patients on VKA-vs-DOAC was 60 % vs 40 %. This proportion is in sharp contrast with the real-life distribution where DOAC outweigh VKA prescriptions. Furthermore, the proportion of anticoagulation clinics that provide DOAC testing (even in special situations) is relatively small (i.e., 31 % of the respondents). Furthermore, 25 % of those that declared to follow DOAC patients do not provide any testing at all. The answers to the above questions cause concerns as (i) most patients on DOAC within the country are probably on self-management, or they are managed by general practitioners or specialists outside thrombosis centers. (ii) Most patients on DOAC have no access to testing even in special situations where it would be needed. We feel that there is a (false) perception that the care needed for DOAC treatment can be much less than that required for VKA, as DOAC require prescription and not regular follow-up. A call for action should be urgently made to reassess the role of anticoagulation clinics, which should pay the same attention to patients on DOAC as those on VKA.

The myths behind DOAC measurement: Analyses of prescribing information from different regulatory bodies and a call for harmonization

For more than a decade, US laboratories have failed to implement solutions to help their clinicians in managing complex situations or patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The problem may find different origins, among which is the position of the Food and Drug Administration, which categorized these drugs as monitoring- and measurement-free, whereas other regulatory bodies like the European Medicines Agency or the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia were more conservative on the principle that the absence of proof (of monitoring/measurement benefits) is not proof of an absence (of monitoring/measurement needs). Pivotal clinical studies that led to the approval of DOACs were presented as devoid of such testing, although some companies considered monitoring as a solution to improve their benefit/risk ratio. In this JTH In Clinics issue, we report more than a decade of development that has permitted the activation of smart laboratory solutions to qualify or quantify DOACs and discuss myths and misconceptions around technical and regulatory requirements that support the current reluctance of implementing these technologies in most US laboratories. Use of DOACs is ever expanding, with DOAC prescriptions now exceeding those of other anticoagulants, including vitamin K antagonists, in some geographies. As this use increases, the likely need to measure DOAC exposure will also increase. Measurement of DOACs does not represent any technical difficulty. That these laboratory tests are not available in some locations suggests disparities in patient care, and we suggest it is time to address such inequalities.