O’Brien, Emily C.

Background. Oral anticoagulation therapy (OAC) reduces the risk of thromboembolic events associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), yet a substantial proportion of patients with AF are not prescribed OAC. The frequencies of and factors associated with contraindications to OAC therapy in clinical practice are not well-described. Methods. We used data from the ORBIT-AF study, a national, prospective, outpatient registry of incident and prevalent AF. OAC contraindications were uniformly collected at study enrollment by site personnel. Patient and provider characteristics were compared between participants with documented OAC contraindications at baseline and those without OAC contraindications. Results. From June 2010 to August 2011, 10124 patients ≥18 years old with electrocardiographically documented AF were enrolled at 176 practices. Of these, 1409 (13.9%) had OAC contraindications documented at the baseline visit: prior bleed (26.2%), patient refusal/preference (26.0%), high bleeding risk (22.6%), frequent falls/frailty (16.6%), other (11.9%), need for dual antiplatelet therapy (9.8%), unable to adhere/monitor warfarin (5.7%), comorbid illness (5.0%), prior intracranial hemorrhage (4.7%), allergy (2.3%), occupational risk (0.8%), and pregnancy (0.2%). Compared to patients without contraindications, those with contraindications had higher stroke risk (CHADS2>2) and were older, more likely to be female, more likely to be seen by a cardiologist and less likely to be seen by an electrophysiologist (Table 1). Among those patients with reported contraindications, 28.4% were taking warfarin. Conclusions. Contraindications to OAC therapy among AF patients are common and often due to high bleeding risk. Furthermore, many patients with reported contraindications are taking warfarin, suggesting that many contraindications to warfarin therapy are minor, relative, or temporary.

Introduction: Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet little is known about Lp(a) testing patterns in real-world practice. We hypothesized that Lp(a) testing occurs in a different population than calculated low density lipoprotein (LDL-C) testing alone, and that elevated Lp(a) is associated with greater lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) initiation and cardiovascular (CV) events. Methods: We used data from 11 health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. We created two cohorts based on lab tests from Jan 1, 2015 to Dec 31, 2019: 1) the Lp(a) cohort, of adults with an Lp(a) test and 2) the LDL-C cohort, of 4:1 date- and site-matched adults with an LDL-C test, but no Lp(a) test. We used logistic regression to assess the relationship between Lp(a) levels (< 50, 50-100, and > 100mg/dL) and initiation of LLT within 3 months; and cox proportional hazards to evaluate Lp(a) levels and time to all-cause hospitalization and the composite of MI, revascularization and ischemic stroke hospitalization. Results: Overall, 20,551 patients (0.06% per year) had Lp(a) tests, with median Lp(a) value 17.5mg/dL (Q1, Q3: 7.0, 56.0). Compared with the LDL-C cohort (N=82,204), the Lp(a) cohort more frequently had ASCVD (24.3% vs. 8.5%) or multiple prior CV events (8.6% vs. 2.6%). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater odds of LLT initiation (Figure 1). Elevated Lp(a) was not significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization; however, Lp(a) > 100mg/dL was correlated with composite CV hospitalization compared with Lp(a) < 50mg/dL [adj HR (95% CI): 1.24 (1.06-1.44), p=0.006]. Conclusions: Lp(a) testing occurs more often in adults with ASCVD and multiple CV events, but testing is infrequent. Elevated Lp(a) was associated with LLT initiation, including niacin, despite lack of evidence of CV benefit. There was an association between elevated Lp(a) and CV hospitalization outcomes.

Background: Little information exists on clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) following a major bleeding event in clinical practice. Methods: We used data from a large, national outpatient registry, ORBIT-AF (2010 – 2011), to evaluate event characteristics and oral anticoagulation (OAC) management following a major bleeding event. Major bleeds were defined according to ISTH criteria. We compared baseline characteristics among patients who persisted on OAC therapy at the first clinic visit following a major bleed and those in whom OAC was discontinued using chi-squared tests. Results: Of 10135 patients enrolled in ORBIT-AF, n=791 (7.8%) bleeding events occurred during 2 years of follow-up. Among patients who were receiving OA, n=632 (3.5 per 100 person years) experienced a major bleed. Of these, 67.3% experienced a fall in hemoglobin and 46.8% required transfusion of 2 of more units of red blood cells. Critical site bleeding occurred in 150 OAC patients, with the majority of these classified as intracranial bleeding (n= 89), followed by retroperitoneal (n=25) and intraocular (n=17). Fatal bleeds occurred in 37 patients (5.9% of all major bleeds). Nearly one-third of patients (31.0%) discontinued OAC therapy following the major bleeding event. Compared with those who persisted on OAC, patients who discontinued OAC were more likely to have hypertension and CKD. Those who discontinued OAC were more likely to have gastrointestinal or CNS site bleeding compared with those who persisted (Table). Conclusions: One in three patients who experienced a major bleed were no longer optimally anticoagulated after the event. Those who discontinued OAC had a greater comorbidity burden and more likely to have bleeding in a critical site those who persisted on OAC.

Background: The Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT) survey has recently been validated to measure the impact of atrial fibrillation on patients’ quality of life, but a clinically important difference (CID) in AFEQT score has not been defined. Knowing the CID is needed to interpret the meaningfulness of differences between treatments in clinical trials; or patient populations for quality assessment. Objectives: To calculate CID values in AFEQT in the ORBIT registry. Methods: ORBIT-AF is a US-based outpatient AF registry that measured disease-specific QoL with the AFEQT tool (score range= 0 (worst) to 100) at baseline and at 1 year follow-up. Two anchor-based methods were used to relate changes in AFEQT to clinically important differences in the more established European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) measure of functional status. Ranging from 1 (no symptoms) to 4 (disabling), a change of 1 EHRA class was defined as an important change in the anchor. Both the mean change and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) methods were then used to identify CIDs in AFEQT at 1 year follow-up. This was done for both improvement and worsening on the anchor. The mean change method defines a CID as the mean change in AFEQT score among patients with a 1 EHRA class change. The ROC method identifies a CID as the point on the ROC curve that best discriminates patients who experienced an important change in the anchor (≥ 1 EHRA class change) from those who experienced no change. Results: AFEQT was assessed in 2008 AF patients at baseline and 1347 patients at 1 year from 99 US sites participating in ORBIT-AF. CIDs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) corresponding to an improvement in EHRA for the mean change method were 5.4 (3.6, 7.2) AFEQT points and 1.9 (0.4, 9.3) AFEQT points for the ROC method. CIDs corresponding to worsening in EHRA for the mean change method were -4.2 (-6.9,-1.5) AFEQT points and -7.4 (-13.9,-4.6) AFEQT points for the ROC method. Conclusions: Changes in AFEQT as small as 2 points may be clinically relevant, although CIDs vary depending on the method of calculation. The variability suggests identifying a single universal CID to assess improvement in quality of life in AF patients may not be ideal and improvement may relate to the nature of a patient’s symptoms and their baseline level of activity.

Background: Little is known about whether insurance status affects the presentation and treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We used data from the ORBIT-AF Registry (2010 - 2011), a national, large outpatient registry, to evaluate clinical characteristics and oral anticoagulation (OAC) use. We examined differences in comorbidities and receipt of OAC among patients enrolled in the Medicaid program at baseline compared with those not enrolled in Medicaid. After restricting to patients who were taking OAC, we compared receipt of novel oral anticoagulants (dabigatran or rivaroxaban) versus warfarin by Medicaid status during 2 years of followup. We used logistic regression models adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates to evaluate baseline OAC receipt by Medicaid status. Results: Of 10,133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) were classified as having Medicaid insurance. Compared with those with other insurance, Medicaid patients were younger (70.0 years; IQR=61.0 - 79.0 vs. 75.0 years; IQR=67.0 - 82.0), more likely to be female (53.0% vs. 41.8%), and less likely to be white (58.7% vs. 90.7%; all p<0.001). Medicaid patients had higher rates of smoking, prior stroke/TIA, diabetes, hypertension, and HF. Medicaid patients were less likely to be taking OAC at baseline, a difference that was particularly pronounced for high stroke risk patients (CHADS2>=2, p<0.001; Table). Among those on anticoagulation, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive NOAC over 2 years of followup. In adjusted analyses, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive OAC at baseline, but this difference was not statistically significant (HR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.61, 1.09). Among untreated patients with CHADS2>=2, Medicaid patients were more likely than patients with other insurance to have “unable to adhere/monitor” listed as a contraindication to OAC (p<0.001). Conclusions: In a contemporary, community-based AF cohort, Medicaid patients had a greater comorbidity burden and higher stroke risk, yet were less likely to receive OAC compared with those with other forms of insurance.

Introduction: Patient understanding of available therapies for atrial fibrillation (AF) is foundational to shared medical decision making and long term medication adherence. Yet, there is a paucity of data regarding the extent to which patients newly diagnosed with AF in routine community practice understand their options. Hypotheses: 1) Understanding of warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC), rhythm control therapy, cardioversion and radio frequency ablation changes little from baseline to 6 months and 2) treatment rates at 6 months are associated with patient understanding of therapies at baseline. Methods: We analyzed survey data from SATELLITE, a substudy of new-onset AF patients enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the ORBIT-AF registry. Patients were surveyed at the baseline and 6 month follow up clinic visit using Likert scales. Agreement between time points was assessed with the McNemar test, and the relationship between understanding and treatment was assessed only for the subset not on treatment at baseline. Results: Of 1000 patients enrolled in SATELLITE, 506 had 6-month survey data (data collection is continuing). Among these, the median age was 69.0 years (IQR 63.0 - 76.0) and 93.7% (474 of 506) were white. There was evidence of improvement in the self-reported understanding of warfarin and NOACs from baseline to 6 months, but not for rhythm control, ablation or cardioversion. The proportion reporting high understanding improved significantly for warfarin (p<.0001) and NOACs (p<.0001) from 47% (223 of 474) and 51% (245 of 481) at baseline to 60% (284 of 474) and 69% (332 of 481) at 6 months respectively (Figure 1). Patients with high understanding of the benefits of ablation (p=0.0005) and options for ablation (p=0.0093) at baseline were more likely to have this therapy at the 6 month follow up (N=590), but improved understanding was not associated with increased use of warfarin/NOACs (N=83) or rhythm control (N=444). Conclusions: Patients with new-onset AF had improved self-reported understanding of some treatment options over the first 6-months from diagnosis; however, factors other than patient understanding may influence AF treatments received at 6 months. Patient understanding of AF treatments remains suboptimal at 6 months, and our results suggest a need for ongoing patient education.

Abstract Aims To determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP’s recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75–3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50–3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively]. Conclusion Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions.

Background: Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) is a leading preventable cause of death that remains common in the US population despite the availability of effective medications. New technology and program innovation has high potential to improve BP but may be expensive and burdensome for patients, clinicians, health systems, and payers and may not produce desired results or reduce existing disparities in BP control. Methods and Results: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is a platform designed to enable national surveillance and facilitate quality improvement and comparative effectiveness research. The platform uses PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, for engagement of health systems and collection of electronic health record data, and the Eureka Research Platform for eConsent and collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. Three demonstration projects are underway: BP track will conduct national surveillance of BP control and related clinical processes by measuring theory-derived pragmatic BP control metrics using electronic health record data, with a focus on tracking disparities over time; BP MAP will conduct a cluster-randomized trial comparing effectiveness of 2 versions of a BP control quality improvement program; BP Home will conduct an individual patient-level randomized trial comparing effectiveness of smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring. Thus far, BP Track has collected electronic health record data from over 826 000 eligible patients with hypertension who completed ≈3.1 million ambulatory visits. Preliminary results demonstrate substantial room for improvement in BP control (<140/90 mm Hg), which was 58% overall, and in the clinical processes relevant for BP control. For example, only 12% of patients with hypertension with a high BP measurement during an ambulatory visit received an order for a new antihypertensive medication. Conclusions: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is designed to be a reusable platform for efficient surveillance and comparative effectiveness research; results from demonstration projects are forthcoming.

Background: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded National Blood Pressure Surveillance System (BP Track) is a new national system that generates quarterly metrics of blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related quality metrics for participating healthcare systems from electronic health record (EHR) data. Methods: Queries against standardized EHR data in the national Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Common Data Model format produce a set of quality metrics relevant to improving BP control, including Controlling High BP (NQF 0018) and Improvement in BP (CMS65v7), and eight process measures specific to clinical management and treatment practices for improving BP control ( Table ). The metrics, aggregated overall and by health system are reported back to health systems via user-friendly Tableau dashboards, and allow for observation of metric trends. Results: To date, 19 datamarts have contributed EHR data from 1,177,232 patients who met the eligibility criteria for the BP Control measure and 4,454,729 encounters that included a BP measurement during the measurement period. Average age was 62 years; 10% were young adults (<45 years), 17% were African American, 52% female, 28% had diabetes, 15% had coronary heart disease, and 14% had depression. Results demonstrate substantial opportunity for improvement in overall BP control (60% with BP<140/<90 mmHg, range: 42-72%), and many healthcare processes, including medication intensification (12%, 0.6-22%) and use of fixed dose combination medications (24%, 0-88%, Table ). Conclusion: Major opportunities exist for improving BP control, especially in improving the frequency and quality of BP medication prescribing for patients with high BP. The BP Track National BP Surveillance System will track these metrics, by demographic subgroup and over time, and will generate data that can guide and focus quality improvement initiatives aimed at effective BP management.

Background: New technology and healthcare delivery approaches may help improve blood pressure (BP) control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can demonstrate effectiveness of these emerging approaches, both overall and especially within underserved populations, but RCTs are expensive. Our objective is to establish a national platform to support BP control surveillance and efficient RCTs. Methods: The PCORnet BP Control Laboratory, designed and launched in partnership with the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Medical Association (AMA), leverages electronic health record (EHR) systems throughout the US, the National Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (PCORnet), and the NIH-funded Eureka Research Platform, which enables direct-to-participant research including collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. We will use these resources to 1) Conduct national surveillance through quarterly EHR data queries to calculate and track institution- and clinic-level BP control metrics across 23 PCORnet institutions, overall and within key subgroups, and support participation in the AHA/AMA’s Target:BP recognition program (BP Track); 2) Compare effectiveness of a Full Support versus Self-Guided version of the AMA’s Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner with Patients (MAP) program at improving BP control in a cluster randomized trial of 24 safety net clinics (BP MAP); and 3) Compare effectiveness of Smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring at reducing systolic BP in an individual-level, direct-to-participant RCT of 2000 patients with uncontrolled BP (BP Home). Results: Preliminary BP Track queries demonstrate an overall BP control rate of 56%, lower control in Black patients (51%), substantial heterogeneity in clinic-level metrics (e.g., 33% vs. 64% BP control), and low rates of medication intensification (9% prescribed a new medication class when BP was high). BP Track will launch PCORnet-wide queries in June; BP MAP in May; and BP Home in August 2019. Conclusions: Feasibility testing is underway to determine if the PCORnet BP Control Laboratory will be useful for investigators interested in conducting efficient RCTs of BP control interventions.