RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Warfarin is a common treatment option to manage patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in clinical practice. Understanding current pharmacist-led anticoagulation clinic management patterns and associated outcomes is important for quality improvement; however, currently little evidence associating outcomes with management patterns exists. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe warfarin management patterns and (b) evaluate associations between warfarin treatment and clinical outcomes for patients with NVAF in an integrated health care system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among NVAF patients with warfarin therapy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011, using Kaiser Permanente Southern California data, and followed until December 31, 2013. Management patterns related to international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, anticoagulation clinic pharmacist intervention (consultation), and warfarin dose adjustments were investigated along with yearly attrition rates, time-in-therapeutic ranges (TTRs), and clinical outcomes (stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding). Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine associations between TTR and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 32,074 NVAF patients on warfarin treatment were identified and followed for a median of 3.8 years. About half (49%) of the patients were newly initiating warfarin therapy. INR monitoring and pharmacist interventions were conducted roughly every 3 weeks after 6 months of warfarin treatment. Sixty-three percent of the study population had ≥ 1 warfarin dose adjustments with a mean (SD) of 6.7 (6.3) annual dose adjustments. Warfarin dose adjustments occurred at a median of 1 day (interquartile ranges [IQR] 1-3) after the INR measurement. Yearly attrition rate was from 3.3% to 6.3% during the follow-up, and median (IQR) TTR was 61% (46%-73%). Patients who received frequent INR monitoring (≥ 27 times per year), pharmacist interventions (≥ 24 times per year), or frequently adjusted warfarin dose (≥ 11 times per year) consistently showed poor TTRs (mean TTR for the highest quartiles was 45.3%-48.3%). A higher TTR was associated with a lower risk of clinical outcomes regardless of frequency of INR monitoring, pharmacist interventions, or number of dose adjustments. Patients whose TTRs were < 65%, even with frequent pharmacist interventions, had similar stroke or systemic embolism event rates, as compared with patients with TTRs < 65% and less frequent interventions (1.88 vs. 1.54 stroke or systemic embolism rates per 100 person-years, respectively, P = 0.78). The lowest TTR quartile (< 46%) was associated with a 3 times higher risk of stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.19, 95% CI = 2.71-3.77) and a 2 times higher risk of major bleeding (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.96-2.24) compared with the highest TTR quartile (≥ 73%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite close monitoring with timely warfarin dose adjustments, there were still a substantial number of challenging patients whose TTRs were suboptimal despite a higher number of pharmacist interventions. These patients eventually experienced more stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding events among NVAF patients managed by anticoagulation clinics. New individualized treatment or management strategies for patients who are not able to reach optimal therapeutic ranges are necessary to improve outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This research and manuscript were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer. Authors from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, review/revision of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. An received a grant for research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Niu, Rashid, and Zheng received a grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer to their institutions for salary reimbursement. Vo, Singh, and Aranda are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bruno was employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of this study. Mendes and Dills are employed by Pfizer, and Mendes was a member of the Pfizer Cardiovascular and Metabolic Field Medical Team during the time of this study. Lang, Jazdzewski, and Le have no known conflicts of interest to report. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by An and Rashid, along with the other authors. Niu took the lead in data collection, along with Zheng, and data interpretation was performed by An, along with Mendes and Dills, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by An and revised by Mendes, Dills, Vo, Singh, Bruno, and Aranda, along with Lang, Le, and Jazdezewski. Part of this study's findings was presented at the CHEST 2015 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Canada, on October 28, 2015.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Fibrilación Atrial/tratamiento farmacológico , Warfarina/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , California , Canadá , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Relación Normalizada Internacional , Masculino , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: High-dose statin therapy may be underutilized in aged patients due to doubts about efficacy and safety. HYPOTHESIS: To investigate outcomes and safety in patients aged 65-78 years compared with patients aged < 65 years in the ALLIANCE study. METHODS: A total of 2,442 stable coronary heart disease (CHD) patients with dyslipidemia were randomized to either aggressive treatment (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol titration goal of < 80 mg/dL or maximum 80 mg/d of atorvastatin) or usual care (continuation of baseline lipid-lowering therapy, with changes and laboratory analyses directed by treating physicians). RESULTS: A total of 1,001 patients aged 65-78 years were followed for a median period of 53.9 mo. Older, aggressively treated atorvastatin patients experienced a 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.57-0.94; p = 0.016). In addition, significant risk reductions were observed for nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI; HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.23-0.79; p = 0.006), cardiac revascularization (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48-0.93; p = 0.017), and the combined endpoint of cardiac death and nonfatal MI (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.32-0.72; p = 0.001). The rate of significant liver transaminase elevations in atorvastatin patients was low and not age related. There were no cases of rhabdomyolysis. The rate of study discontinuations due to serious adverse events was higher in patients aged 65-78 years than in those younger than 65 years, but was similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the efficacy and safety of aggressive lipid management with atorvastatin in older CHD patients.
Asunto(s)
Anticolesterolemiantes/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Ácidos Heptanoicos/uso terapéutico , Pirroles/uso terapéutico , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Atorvastatina , LDL-Colesterol/efectos de los fármacos , Intervalos de Confianza , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Femenino , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , RiesgoRESUMEN
Screening for early-stage asymptomatic cancers (eg, cancers of breast and colon) to prevent late-stage malignancies has been widely accepted. However, although atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (eg, heart attack and stroke) accounts for more death and disability than all cancers combined, there are no national screening guidelines for asymptomatic (subclinical) atherosclerosis, and there is no government- or healthcare-sponsored reimbursement for atherosclerosis screening. Part I and Part II of this consensus statement elaborated on new discoveries in the field of atherosclerosis that led to the concept of the "vulnerable patient." These landmark discoveries, along with new diagnostic and therapeutic options, have set the stage for the next step: translation of this knowledge into a new practice of preventive cardiology. The identification and treatment of the vulnerable patient are the focuses of this consensus statement. In this report, the Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education (SHAPE) Task Force presents a new practice guideline for cardiovascular screening in the asymptomatic at-risk population. In summary, the SHAPE Guideline calls for noninvasive screening of all asymptomatic men 45-75 years of age and asymptomatic women 55-75 years of age (except those defined as very low risk) to detect and treat those with subclinical atherosclerosis. A variety of screening tests are available, and the cost-effectiveness of their use in a comprehensive strategy must be validated. Some of these screening tests, such as measurement of coronary artery calcification by computed tomography scanning and carotid artery intima-media thickness and plaque by ultrasonography, have been available longer than others and are capable of providing direct evidence for the presence and extent of atherosclerosis. Both of these imaging methods provide prognostic information of proven value regarding the future risk of heart attack and stroke. Careful and responsible implementation of these tests as part of a comprehensive risk assessment and reduction approach is warranted and outlined by this report. Other tests for the detection of atherosclerosis and abnormal arterial structure and function, such as magnetic resonance imaging of the great arteries, studies of small and large artery stiffness, and assessment of systemic endothelial dysfunction, are emerging and must be further validated. The screening results (severity of subclinical arterial disease) combined with risk factor assessment are used for risk stratification to identify the vulnerable patient and initiate appropriate therapy. The higher the risk, the more vulnerable an individual is to a near-term adverse event. Because <10% of the population who test positive for atherosclerosis will experience a near-term event, additional risk stratification based on reliable markers of disease activity is needed and is expected to further focus the search for the vulnerable patient in the future. All individuals with asymptomatic atherosclerosis should be counseled and treated to prevent progression to overt clinical disease. The aggressiveness of the treatment should be proportional to the level of risk. Individuals with no evidence of subclinical disease may be reassured of the low risk of a future near-term event, yet encouraged to adhere to a healthy lifestyle and maintain appropriate risk factor levels. Early heart attack care education is urged for all individuals with a positive test for atherosclerosis. The SHAPE Task Force reinforces existing guidelines for the screening and treatment of risk factors in younger populations. Cardiovascular healthcare professionals and policymakers are urged to adopt the SHAPE proposal and its attendant cost-effectiveness as a new strategy to contain the epidemic of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and the rising cost of therapies associated with this epidemic.