Desai, Nihar R.

AbstractObjectiveTo describe physicians’ variation in de‐adopting concurrent statin and fibrate therapy for type 2 diabetic patients following a reversal in clinical evidence.Data SourcesWe analyzed 2007‐2015 claims data from OptumLabs® Data Warehouse, a longitudinal, real‐world data asset with de‐identified administrative claims and electronic health record data.Study DesignWe modeled fibrate use among Medicare Advantage and commercially insured type 2 diabetic statin users before and after the publication of the ACCORD lipid trial, which found statins and fibrates were no more effective than statins alone in reducing cardiovascular events among type 2 diabetic patients. We modeled fibrate use trends with physician random effects and physician characteristics such as age and specialty.Data ExtractionWe identified patient‐year‐quarters with one year of continuous insurance enrollment, type 2 diabetes diagnoses, and fibrate use. We designated the physician most responsible for patients’ diabetes care based on evaluation and management visits and prescriptions of glucose‐lowering drugs.Principal FindingsFibrate use increased by 0.12 percentage points per quarter among commercial patients (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14) and 0.17 percentage points per quarter among Medicare Advantage patients (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.20) before the trial and then decreased by 0.16 percentage points per quarter among commercial patients (95% CI, −0.18 to −0.15) and 0.05 percentage points per quarter among Medicare Advantage patients (95% CI, −0.06 to −0.03) after the trial. However, 45% of physicians treating commercial patients and 48% of physicians treating Medicare Advantage patients had positive trends in prescribing following the trial. Physicians’ characteristics did not explain their variation (pseudo R2 = 0.000).ConclusionOn average, physicians decreased fibrate prescribing following the ACCORD lipid trial. However, many physicians increased prescribing following the trial. Observable physician characteristics did not explain variations in prescribing. Future research should examine whether physicians vary similarly in other de‐adoption settings.

Background Several studies have shown improved outcomes in closed compared with open medical and surgical intensive care units. However, very little is known about the ideal organizational structure in the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed consecutive unique admissions (n=3996) to our tertiary care CICU from September 2013 to October 2017. The aim of our study was to assess for differences in clinical outcomes between an open compared with a closed CICU. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. We identified 2226 patients in the open unit and 1770 in the closed CICU. The unadjusted in‐hospital mortality in the open compared with closed unit was 9.6% and 8.9%, respectively ( P =0.42). After multivariable adjustment, admission to the closed unit was associated with a lower in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53–0.90, P =0.007) and CICU mortality (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.94, P =0.02). In subgroup analysis, admissions for cardiac arrest (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20–0.88, P =0.02) and respiratory insufficiency (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22–0.82, P =0.01) were also associated with a lower in‐hospital mortality in the closed unit. We did not find a difference in CICU length of stay or total hospital charges ( P >0.05). Conclusions We found an association between lower in‐hospital and CICU mortality after the transition to a closed CICU. These results may help guide the ongoing redesign in other tertiary care CICUs.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation and severely decreased kidney function were excluded from the pivotal non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) trials, thereby raising questions about comparative safety and effectiveness in patients with reduced kidney function. The study aimed to compare oral anticoagulants across the range of kidney function in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results: Using a US administrative claims database with linked laboratory data, 34 569 new users of oral anticoagulants with atrial fibrillation and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥15 mL/(min·1.73 m 2 ) were identified between October 1, 2010 to November 29, 2017. The proportion of patients using NOACs declined with decreasing kidney function—73.5%, 69.6%, 65.4%, 59.5%, and 45.0% of the patients were prescribed a NOAC in estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥90, 60 to 90, 45 to 60, 30 to 45, 15 to 30 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 groups, respectively. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance 4 treatment groups (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) on 66 baseline characteristics. In comparison to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57 [0.43–0.75]; P <0.001), major bleeding (HR, 0.51 [0.44–0.61]; P <0.001), and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.56–0.83]; P <0.001); dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke but a lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.57 [0.43–0.75]; P <0.001) and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.48-0.98]; P =0.04); rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (HR, 0.69 [0.51–0.94]; P =0.02), major bleeding (HR, 0.84 [0.72–0.99]; P =0.04), and mortality (HR, 0.73 [0.58–0.91]; P =0.006). There was no significant interaction between treatment and estimated glomerular filtration rate categories for any outcome. When comparing one NOAC to another NOAC, there was no significant difference in mortality, but some differences existed for stroke or major bleeding. No relationship between treatments and falsification end points was found, suggesting no evidence for substantial residual confounding. Conclusions: Relative to warfarin, NOACs are used less frequently as kidney function declines. However, NOACs appears to have similar or better comparative effectiveness and safety across the range of kidney function.

Background: Stroke prevention using warfarin is challenging in AF patients with CKD, due to high bleeding risk and difficulties in the INR control. NOACs provide alternative options, but all have greater degrees of renal clearance. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin across the range of kidney function in patients with AF. Methods: Using a US administrative database including private insurance or Medicare Advantage patients with linked claims and laboratory data, we identified 34,569 new users of oral anticoagulants with AF and eGFR ≥15 between 10/1/2010-11/29/2017. Stabilized IPTW balanced four treatment groups on 66 baseline characteristics. The primary outcomes included stroke, major bleeding, and mortality. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models compared treatments in the overall population and in each eGFR subgroup, with mortality as a competing risk for stroke and major bleeding. Results: The proportion of patients using warfarin increased as the kidney function declined - 26.5%, 30.4%, 34.6%, 40.5%, and 55.0% of patients were prescribed warfarin in eGFR ≥90, 60-90, 45-60, 30-45, 15-30 groups, respectively. In comparison to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke, major bleeding, and mortality; dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke, and a lower risk of major bleeding and mortality; rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke, major bleeding, and mortality (Figure). When comparing one NOAC to another NOAC, apixaban and dabigatran were associated with a lower risk of major bleeding than rivaroxaban (HR 0.61 [0.51-0.73], p<0.001 for apixaban versus rivaroxaban; HR 0.67 [0.50-0.90], p=0.007 for dabigatran versus rivaroxaban); dabigatran was associated with a higher risk of stroke than apixaban (HR 1.65 [1.11-2.46], p=0.01); there was no difference in mortality. There was no significant interaction between treatment and eGFR categories for any outcome, but the number of patients with low eGFR was small. Conclusions: In practice, relative to warfarin, NOACs are progressively less commonly used with increasing degree of renal dysfunction. However, each NOAC was consistently associated with at least equivalent effectiveness and safety compared with warfarin across the range of kidney function.

Background: Efforts to improve prescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC) drugs in patients with atrial fibrillation have had limited success in improving guideline adherence. Methods: We evaluated adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association performance measures for OAC in eligible patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2 and trends in prescription over time in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines–AFIB (atrial fibrillation) registry. Adjusted associations with in-hospital outcomes were also determined. The cohort included 33 235 patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2 who were admitted for atrial fibrillation and were enrolled at 115 sites between January 1, 2013, and September 31, 2017. Results: The median (25th, 75th percentile) age was 73 years (65, 81 years); 51% were female; and the median (25th, 75th percentile) CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4 (3, 5). At admission, 16 206 (59.5%) of 27 221 patients with a previous diagnosis of atrial fibrillation were taking OAC agents, and OAC drug use at admission was associated with a lower adjusted odds of in-hospital ischemic stroke (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24–0.59; P <0.0001). At discharge, prescription of OAC in eligible patients (no contraindications) was 93.5% (n=25 499 of 27 270). In a sensitivity analysis, when excluding only strict contraindications (4.6%, n=1497 of 32 806), OAC prescription at discharge was 80.3%. OAC prescription at discharge was higher in those aged ≤75 years, men, those with heart failure, those with previous atrial fibrillation ablation, and those with rhythm control ( P <0.0001 for all). OAC use was lowest in Hispanic patients (90.2%, P <0.0001). Prescription of OAC at discharge in eligible patients improved over time from 79.9% to 96.6% ( P <0.0001). Conclusions: Among hospitals participating in the GWTG-AFIB quality improvement program, OAC prescription at discharge in eligible guideline-indicated patients increased significantly and improved consistently over time. These data confirm that high-level adherence to guideline-recommended stroke prevention is achievable.