Montori, Víctor M.

Background In comparison to warfarin, non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants ( NOAC s) have the advantages of ease of dosing, fewer drug interactions, and lack of need for ongoing monitoring. We sought to evaluate whether these advantages translate to improved adherence and whether adherence is associated with improved outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective cohort analysis by using a large US commercial insurance database to identify 64 661 patients with atrial fibrillation who initiated warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban treatment between November 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. During a median of 1.1 y of follow‐up, 47.5% of NOAC patients had a proportion of days covered of ≥80%, compared with 40.2% in warfarin patients ( P <0.001). Patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c (risk based on the presence of congestive heart failure, hypertension age 65–74 y, age ≥75 y, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, sex category) score ≥4 were at increased risk of stroke when they were not taking anticoagulation ≥1 month versus <1 week (1–3 months: hazard ratio [ HR ] 1.96, 3–6 months: HR 2.64, ≥6 months: HR 3.66; all P <0.001). Patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score 2 or 3 were at increased risk of stroke when they were not taking anticoagulation ≥6 months ( HR 2.73, P <0.001). In these patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score ≥2, nonadherence was not associated with intracranial hemorrhage. Among patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score 0 or 1, time not taking anticoagulation was not associated with stroke, but not taking anticoagulation ≥3 months was associated with a significant reduction of bleeding. Conclusions Adherence to anticoagulation is poor in practice and may be modestly improved with NOAC s. Adherence to therapy appears to be most important in patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score ≥2, whereas the benefits of anticoagulation may not outweigh the harms in patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score 0 or 1.

ObjectiveDespite innovations in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), adherence is poor and disparities persist. Shared decision making (SDM) promotes patient engagement and enhances adherence; however, few tools support SDM in RA. Our objective was to pilot a low‐literacy medication guide and decision aid to facilitate patient‐clinician conversations about RA medications.MethodsRA patients were consecutively enrolled into 1 of 3 arms: 1) control; patients received existing medication guide prior to clinic visit, 2) adapted guide prior to visit, and 3) adapted guide prior to plus decision aid during visit. Outcomes were collected immediately postvisit, at 1‐week, and at 3‐ and 6‐month interviews. Eligible adults had to have failed at least 1 disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug and fulfill 1 of the following: age >65 years, immigrant, non–English speaker, less than high school education, limited health literacy, and racial/ethnic minority. Primary outcomes were knowledge of RA medications, decisional conflict, and acceptability of interventions.ResultsThe majority of 166 patients were immigrants (66%), non–English speakers (54%), and had limited health literacy (71%). Adequate RA knowledge postvisit in arm 3 was higher (78%) than arm 1 (53%; adjusted odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.2, 6.1). Among patients with a medication change, there was lower (better) mean decisional conflict in arms 2 and 3 (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in acceptability.ConclusionA low‐literacy medication guide and decision aid was acceptable, improved knowledge, and reduced decisional conflict among vulnerable RA patients. Enhancing knowledge and patient engagement with decision support tools may lead to medication choices better aligned with RA patients’ values and preferences.

SummaryBackgroundThyroid ultrasound to assess for nodular growth is commonly performed during the follow‐up of patients with benign thyroid nodules, with the goal of identifying patients with a missed diagnosis of thyroid cancer. The objective of this study was to summarize the evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of growth during follow‐up of benign thyroid nodules for thyroid cancer.MethodsWe searched multiple electronic databases using a search strategy designed by an experienced medical librarian from inception to March 2015. Eligible studies included patients with benign thyroid nodules assessed for growth during follow‐up and evaluated for thyroid cancer either by surgical histology or a repeat fine needle aspiration biopsy. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate recorded data and assessed each study.ResultsThe seven eligible studies lacked safeguards against bias and generated results that were imprecise with wide confidence intervals and inconsistent across studies. This warrants very low confidence in these results. The odds of nodule growth in patients with thyroid cancer on histopathology over these odds in patients without thyroid cancer (diagnostic odds ratio) was 0·58 (95% CI: 0·26–1·3); the diagnostic odds ratio was 2·2 (95% CI: 0·26–18) when an abnormal repeat biopsy was the reference standard.ConclusionThe body of evidence linking nodule growth with thyroid cancer during the follow‐up of benign nodules warrants very low confidence. In the era of high‐value health care, the commonplace practice of following benign thyroid nodules with serial ultrasound assessment of growth to diagnose cancer can be questioned, calling for imminent evaluation.

SummaryPatients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) are commonly evaluated for clinical manifestations of this syndrome with the rationale that early diagnosis and adequate treatment will result in improved survival and quality of life. Thymic and bronchial carcinoid tumours are uncommon but important manifestations of MEN1. Current practice guidelines recommend evaluation with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan of the chest every 1–2 years to detect these neoplasms. However, the certainty that patients will be better off (increased survival or quality of life) as a result of this case detection strategy is based on evidence at moderate–high risk of bias that yields only imprecise results of indirect relevance to these patients. In order to improve the care that patients with MEN1 receive, co‐ordinated efforts from different stakeholders are required so that large, prospective, multicentre studies evaluating patient important outcomes are carried out.

ObjectiveHow best to involve patients in the development of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations is not known. We sought to determine the feasibility and value of developing CPG recommendations based on a voting panel composed entirely of patients, with the ultimate goal of comparing the patients’ recommendations to ones developed by a physician‐dominated voting panel on the same clinical questions.MethodsTen patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed 8 hours of training on evidence‐based medicine and guideline development. They constituted a voting panel and, with 2 American College of Rheumatology staff with expertise in CPG development and a physician facilitator, subsequently met at a face‐to‐face meeting to develop recommendations. They applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to formulate recommendations on 18 questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate or high confidence.ResultsThe patient panel developed recommendations for 16 of the 18 questions; for the other 2, the panel thought there were insufficient data to support a recommendation. For 13 of the 16 questions, the patient panel recommended the same course of action as did the physician‐dominated panel. Differences were due to how the 2 panels valued the balance between benefits and harms.ConclusionPatient and physician‐dominated panels developed the same recommendations for most questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate to high confidence. Additional experiences are necessary to advance the evidence necessary to determine what panel composition is optimal to produce the best guidelines.