Spencer‐Bonilla, Gabriela

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Abstract Background The efficacy of lipid-lowering agents on patient-important outcomes in older individuals is unclear. Methods We included randomized trials that enrolled individuals aged 65 years or older and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. Pairs of reviewers selected and appraised the trials. Results We included 23 trials that enrolled 60,194 elderly patients. For primary prevention, statins reduced the risk of coronary artery disease [CAD; relative risk (RR): 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.91] and myocardial infarction (MI; RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.66) but not all-cause or cardiovascular mortality or stroke. These effects were imprecise in patients with diabetes, but there was no significant interaction between diabetes status and the intervention effect. For secondary prevention, statins reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.89), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.79), CAD (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.77), MI (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.79), and revascularization (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.77). Intensive (vs less-intensive) statin therapy reduced the risk of CAD and heart failure. Niacin did not reduce the risk of revascularization, and fibrates did not reduce the risk of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, or CAD. Conclusion High-certainty evidence supports statin use for secondary prevention in older individuals. Evidence for primary prevention is less certain. Data in older individuals with diabetes are limited; however, no empirical evidence has shown a significant difference based on diabetes status.