Houten, Holly K. Van

Background This study aimed to compare percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with non‐vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants among patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results Using a US administrative database, 562 850 patients with atrial fibrillation were identified, among whom 8397 were treated with LAAO and 554 453 were treated with non‐vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants between March 13, 2015 and December 31, 2018. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was a composite end point of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all‐cause mortality. The mean age was 76.4±7.6 years; 280 097 (49.8%) were female. Mean follow‐up was 1.5±1.0 years. LAAO was associated with no significant difference in the risk of the primary composite end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93 [0.84–1.03]), or the secondary outcomes including ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (HR, 1.07 [0.81–1.41]), and intracranial bleeding (HR, 1.08 [0.72–1.61]). LAAO was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.22 [1.05–1.42], P =0.01) and a lower risk of mortality (HR, 0.73 [0.64–0.84], P <0.001). The lower risk of mortality associated with LAAO was most pronounced in patients with a prior history of intracranial bleeding. Conclusions In comparison to non‐vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, LAAO was associated with no significant difference in the risk of the composite outcome and a lower risk of mortality, which suggests LAAO might be a reasonable option in select patients with atrial fibrillation. The observation of higher bleeding risk associated with LAAO highlights the need to optimize postprocedural antithrombotic regimens as well as systematic efforts to assess and address bleeding predispositions.

Background EAST‐AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial) demonstrated clinical benefit of early rhythm‐control therapy (ERC) in patients with new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant cardiovascular conditions compared with current guideline‐based practice. This study aimed to evaluate the generalizability of EAST‐AFNET 4 in routine practice. Methods and Results Using a US administrative database, we identified 109 739 patients with newly diagnosed AF during the enrollment period of EAST‐AFNET 4. Patients were classified as either receiving ERC, using AF ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy, within the first year after AF diagnosis (n=27 106) or not receiving ERC (control group, n=82 633). After propensity score overlap weighting, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare groups for the primary composite outcome of all‐cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction. Most patients (79 948 of 109 739; 72.9%) met the inclusion criteria for EAST‐AFNET 4. ERC was associated with a reduced risk for the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75–0.97 [ P =0.02]) with largely consistent results between eligible (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76–1.04 [ P =0.14]) or ineligible (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60–0.98 [ P =0.04]) patients for EAST‐AFNET 4 trial inclusion. ERC was associated with lower risk of stroke in the overall cohort and in trial‐eligible patients. Conclusions This analysis replicates the clinical benefit of ERC seen in EAST‐AFNET 4. The results support adoption of ERC as part of the management of recently diagnosed AF in the United States.

Abstract Aims Artificial intelligence (AI) enabled electrocardiography (ECG) can detect latent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with sinus rhythm (SR). However, the change of AI-ECG probability before and after the first AF episode is not well characterized. We sought to characterize the temporal trend of AI-ECG AF probability around the first episode of AF. Methods and results We retrospectively studied adults who had at least one ECG in SR prior to an ECG that documented AF. An AI network calculated the AF probability from ECGs during SR (positive defined &gt;8.7%, based on optimal sensitivity and specificity). The AI-ECG probability was reported prior to and after the first episode of AF and stratified by age and CHA2DS2-VASc score. Mixed effect models were used to assess the rate of change between time points. A total of 59 212 patients with 544 330 ECGs prior to AF and 413 486 ECGs after AF were included. The mean time between the first positive AI-ECG and first AF was 5.4 ± 5.7 years. The mean AI-ECG probability was 19.8% 2–5 years prior to AF, 23.6% 1–2 years prior to AF, 34.0% 0–3 months prior to AF, 40.9% 0–3 months after AF, 35.2% 1–2 years after AF, and 42.2% 2–5 years after AF (P &lt; 0.001). The rate of increase prior to AF was higher for age &gt;50 years CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4. Conclusion The AI-ECG probability progressively increases with time prior to the first AF episode, transiently decreases 1–2 years following AF and continues to increase thereafter.

Abstract Background The Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial (EAST-AFNET 4) demonstrated clinical benefit of early rhythm-control therapy in patients with recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant cardiovascular conditions (CHA2DS2-VASc-Score ≥2) compared to the current practice of limited rhythm-control therapy to improve AF-related symptoms. Purpose To evaluate the generalizability of the EAST-AFNET 4 trial in routine practice, we assessed the proportion of patients who would have met trial eligibility and examined the association between early rhythm-control and clinical outcomes. Methods Using a large US administrative database, we identified 109,739 patients with newly diagnosed AF from July 28th, 2011 to December 30th, 2016, the enrollment period of the EAST-AFNET 4 trial. Eligibility for trial inclusion was assessed based on inclusion criteria. Eligible patients were classified as either receiving early rhythm-control, i.e AF ablation and/or any antiarrhythmic drug therapy, within the first year after AF diagnosis (N=27,106) or patients not receiving early rhythm-control (N=82,633). The date 12 months after the first AF diagnosis was defined as the index date and the start of the follow up period. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to balance patients on 90 baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare early rhythm-control with no early rhythm-control for the primary outcome of a composite end point of all-cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction. Results Eligible for the trial were 72.9% (82,633/109,739) of all patients with newly diagnosed AF. Early rhythm-control therapy was associated with a reduction in the composite end point in the overall cohort of patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–0.97; P=0.015) with largely consistent treatment effects between patients eligible or ineligible for the trial. The reduction of stroke risk associated with early rhythm-control therapy was found in the overall cohort (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47–0.93; P=0.017) and in the trial-eligible cohort (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.45–0.98; P=0.041). Conclusion In a large health care data set, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed AF were eligible for the trial. Early rhythm-control therapy was associated with a 15% reduction in the composite end point of all-cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction, with the greatest benefit in the reduction of stroke risk. The treatment effect was consistent between patients eligible or ineligible for the trial. Patients in routine practice had higher rates of adverse outcomes than the trial, but the relative risk reduction with early rhythm-control therapy was similar. These data demonstrate the potential of early rhythm-control therapy to reduce outcomes in patients with AF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): German Heart Foundation (Mit Fördermitteln der Deutschen Herzstiftung e.V.)

OBJECTIVE To examine whether glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are preferentially initiated among patients with cardiovascular disease, heart failure (HF), or nephropathy, where these drug classes have established benefit, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), for which corresponding benefits have not been demonstrated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed claims of adults with type 2 diabetes included in OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a deidentified database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, who first started GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, or DPP-4i therapy between 2016 and 2019. Using multinomial logistic regression, we examined the relative risk ratios (RRR) of starting GLP-1RA and SGLT2i compared with DPP-4i for those with a history of myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular disease, HF, and nephropathy after adjusting for demographic and other clinical factors. RESULTS We identified 75,395 patients who started GLP-1RA, 58,234 who started SGLT2i, and 91,884 who started DPP-4i. Patients with prior MI, cerebrovascular disease, or nephropathy were less likely to start GLP-1RA rather than DPP-4i compared with patients without these conditions (RRR 0.83 [95% CI 0.78–0.88] for MI, RRR 0.77 [0.74–0.81] for cerebrovascular disease, and RRR 0.87 [0.84–0.91] for nephropathy). Patients with HF or nephropathy were less likely to start SGLT2i (RRR 0.83 [0.80–0.87] for HF and RRR 0.57 [0.55–0.60] for nephropathy). Both medication classes were less likely to be started by non-White and older patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients with cardiovascular disease, HF, and nephropathy, for whom evidence suggests a greater likelihood of benefiting from GLP-1RA and/or SGLT2i therapy, were less likely to start these drugs. Addressing this treatment/benefit paradox, which was most pronounced in non-White and older patients, may help reduce the morbidity associated with these conditions.

Background/Aims: The Pediatric Research Equity Act and Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act are intended to promote the conduct of clinical trials that generate pediatric-specific evidence about drug safety and efficacy. This study assesses the quality of evidence generated through Pediatric Research Equity Act–mandated and Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act–incentivized clinical trials of hematology/oncology drugs and characterizes subsequent changes in pediatric drug utilization rates. Methods: Trial characteristics (blinding, randomization, and comparator group) were determined for clinical trials that supported pediatric label changes. Using data from OptumLabs ® Data Warehouse, a de-identified administrative claims database, we calculated pediatric utilization rates for each drug. We calculated monthly utilization rates from January 2003 (or from the first month in which data were available) to December 2018. Results: We identified 11 hematology/oncology drugs that underwent pediatric label changes under the Pediatric Research Equity Act Pediatric Research Equity Act and/or Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and we identified 15 trials supporting these changes. Of these trials, 36% (5/14) were randomized, 31% (4/13) were blinded, and 36% (5/14) used a comparator group. A median of 49 children (interquartile range 29.5) received the drug under investigation across these trials. Pediatric label changes were not associated with subsequent changes in pediatric drug utilization. Although some drugs saw increased pediatric use after gaining new pediatric indications, this pattern was not consistently observed. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that drugs were utilized less frequently after they failed to receive pediatric indications. Conclusions: Clinical trials of hematology/oncology drugs conducted under the Pediatric Research Equity Act Pediatric Research Equity Act and Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act generally have low methodological rigor, and the resulting label changes are not consistently associated with changes in pediatric utilization. Alternative regulatory strategies and study designs may be necessary to maximize the impact of newly generated knowledge on drug utilization.

Diabetes mellitus is considered to be a coronary heart disease (CHD) equivalent, with heart disease and stroke accounting for the majority of diabetes-related deaths. As a result, patients with diabetes require aggressive treatment of CHD risk factors, including dyslipidemia. In addition to targeted reduction of LDL cholesterol, current guidelines recommend addition of a fibrate (gemfibrozil, fenofibrate, or clofibrate) in patients with established CHD and atherogenic dyslipidemia: triglycerides (TG) 200-499 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) ≤40 mg/dL. Fibrates have also been recommended for patients with TG ≥500 mg/dL to reduce risk of acute pancreatitis. Yet, data supporting the use of fibrates in these settings remains variable and inconclusive. We therefore sought to provide an in-depth analysis of patterns of fibrate use among patients with type 2 diabetes between 2001 and 2010. Using Ingenix administrative claims, we identified 71,161 patients age ≥18 years old with an established diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (ICD-9 250.XX) and ≥3 years of continuous enrollment who were newly initiated on a fibrate between 2001 and 2010. Lab results were available for a subset of 18,863 (26.5%) patients, who were included in final analysis. During each 2-year period, between 77.6% - 84.1% of patients had a lipid test performed within the preceding 12 months (p=0.59 for change in testing over time). The prevalence of atherogenic dyslipidemia increased over time, from 20.8% (2001-2002) to 41.2% (2009-2010); 4.84% rise per 2-year period (p=0.002). The prevalence of severe atherogenic dyslipidemia (HDL-C ≤40 mg/dL and TG ≥500 mg/dL), also increased over time, from 9.3% in 2001-2002 to 13.6% in 2009-2010; 1.17% rise per 2-year period (p=0.002). In contrast, percent of patients with TG ≥500 mg/dL decreased over time, from 20.5% in 2001-2002 to 16.7% in 2009-2010; 1.19% decline per 2-year period (p=0.03). Initiation of new fibrate therapy in treatment naïve patients with diabetes remained constant; 2.0% in 2001-2002 and 1.6% in 2009-2010 (p=0.93). Subgroup analysis of patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia also showed no significant change in fibrate initiation over time; 11.4% in 2001-2002 and 15.7% in 2009-2010 (p=0.3). Similarly, while there was a trend toward increased initiation of fibrates among patients with TG ≥500 mg/dL, this trend was not statistically significant (27.4% in 2001-2002 and 41.6% in 2009-2010; 3.34% change per 2-year period (p=0.09)). In conclusion, the prevalence of atherogenic dyslipidemia among patients with type 2 diabetes has increased significantly over the past decade. However, fibrate use in all patients with type 2 diabetes, including those specifically with atherogenic dyslipidemia, has remained constant throughout the observation period, despite lack of conclusive evidence supporting its use.

Background: In July 2015, the FDA approved the use of sacubitril/ valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. It was shown in a large clinical trial to reduce the risk of both hospitalization and death compared with enalapril, and has since received a class I recommendation for use in the 2016 ACC/ AHA HF guidelines. However, the use of sacubitril/ valsartan in a clinical practice has not been described. We aimed to assess the uptake and cost of sacubitril/ valsartan in its first year following FDA approval. Methods: Using a large U.S. insurance database, we identified privately insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients who filled a first prescription for sacubitril/ valsartan between July 1, 2015 and July 31, 2016. We restricted to persons with medical and pharmacy enrollment for 6 months prior to first fill. For reference, we identified all individuals with a diagnosis of HF on a billing claim (ICD9 428.X or ICD-10 I50.X) in the same time period. Results: There were 314,410 individuals with a diagnosis of HF in the study period. In total, 972 filled a new prescription for sacubitril/ valsartan, and the number of new users steadily increased over time (Figure). The mean age of sacubitril/ valsartan users was 68.1±12.3 years, 32.5% were women, 61.1% were white, and 77% were enrolled in MA plans. Most prescribing clinicians were cardiologists (82.5%). A majority of prescription costs were covered by the health plan (mean $324.05, median $335.38, interquartile range [IQR] $266.56-$370.10). Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs per 30-day prescription filled were variable (mean $101.53, median $45.00, IQR $7.40-$97.49), and were similar in beneficiaries enrolled in MA and commercial plans. By comparison, median OOP costs were $2-4 for lisinopril, losartan, carvedilol, and spironolactone per 30-day prescription. Discussion: These finding suggest that the uptake of sacubitril/ valsartan has been slow in the first year after FDA approval. While the majority of prescription costs are covered by the health plan, OOP costs are still much higher than other guideline-recommended HF medications. Further studies are needed to determine if uptake of sacubril/ valsartan continues to rise and if the higher prescription cost is associated with lower downstream costs of hospitalization and mortality benefit.