Hemostasis Today
NewsFeed
Headlines Hematology Health Medicine VTE ASH Plasma Donation
July, 2026
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Ifeanyichukwu Ifechidere: The Monitoring Dilemma in DOAC Therapy – Concentration vs. Real-Time Effect
Ifeanyichukwu Ifechidere/LinkedIn
Jul 24, 2026, 21:09

Ifeanyichukwu Ifechidere: The Monitoring Dilemma in DOAC Therapy – Concentration vs. Real-Time Effect

Ifeanyichukwu Ifechidere, Specialist Biomedical Scientist at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shared a post on LinkedIn:

“DOACs don’t need monitoring.

That sentence has quietly put patients at risk.

For years, one of the biggest selling points of DOACs was fixed dosing, no routine monitoring. It sounded like progress.

But ask any lab scientist who’s had to interpret a coagulation screen on a bleeding patient on apixaban, and you’ll get a very different answer.

Here’s the debate the profession hasn’t fully settled.

The Case for Quantitative Monitoring

Anti-Xa assays calibrated for DOACs, or dilute thrombin time for dabigatran, give you an actual drug level — a number you can act on. In bleeding patients, pre-procedure planning, renal impairment, extremes of body weight, or suspected overdose, ‘no monitoring needed’ quickly becomes ‘we have no idea how much drug is on board.’

A quantitative result can be the difference between safely reversing anticoagulation and reversing blind.

The Case for Pharmacodynamic Assessment

The counterargument is compelling too: a drug level tells you concentration, not necessarily bleeding or clotting risk in that specific patient. Two patients with identical anti-Xa levels can have very different clinical pictures depending on age, renal function, concurrent antiplatelets, and bleeding phenotype.

Functional assays — viscoelastic testing, global haemostasis assays — arguably tell you what the drug is actually doing to that patient’s clot, not just how much of it is circulating.

Where the Tension Really Lives

Quantitative testing is more standardised, more reproducible, and easier to build reference ranges around — but it can create false reassurance if clinicians assume a ‘normal’ level means a ‘normal’ haemostatic response.

Functional/pharmacodynamic testing is more physiologically relevant — but it’s less standardised across labs, harder to interpret consistently, and still lacks the robust validation that quantitative assays have built up over the years.

The Uncomfortable Question

Are we monitoring DOACs to reassure ourselves with a number, or to actually predict what matters clinically — bleeding and thrombotic risk?

Right now, neither approach fully answers that on its own. Quantitative assays tell you exposure. Functional assays gesture toward effect. Neither reliably predicts outcome in every patient.

Until the evidence catches up, the honest answer may be: use quantitative testing for drug level and timing decisions, and functional assays for real-time bleeding management — and stop pretending either one alone gives you the full picture.

Where do you stand — quantitative, functional, or both?

Let’s debate below”

Ifeanyichukwu Ifechidere: The Monitoring Dilemma in DOAC Therapy - Concentration vs. Real-Time Effect

Find more posts featuring Ifeanyichukwu Ifechidere on Hemostasis Today.

bleeding disorders Blood Headlines Health Hematology Hemostasis Hemostasis News Hemostasis Today Ifeanyichukwu Ifechidere ISTH 2026 Medicine thrombosis
NewsFeed