Shah, Nilay D.

SummaryBackgroundReal‐world comparative benefits and risks of infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are unclear.AimTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of IFX and ADA in patients with UC who were new users of anti‐TNF agents.MethodsUsing an administrative claims database (Optum Labs Data Warehouse), we identified patients who received first anti‐TNF (IFX, ADA) prescription after a 12‐month period without any anti‐TNF treatment (baseline), and with a minimum 6‐month follow‐up after anti‐TNF initiation. Primary outcome measures were: all‐cause and UC‐related hospitalisation, abdominal surgery, corticosteroid use >60 days after starting anti‐TNF, and serious infections. We performed 2:1 propensity‐score matched Cox proportional hazard analysis, and inverse probability‐of‐treatment weight (IPTW) analysis, accounting for healthcare utilisation, comorbidities and use of UC‐related medication.ResultsWe included 1400 new users of anti‐TNF agents (age, 43 ± 15 years; 52% males), from 2006 to 2014. On propensity‐score matched analysis, there was no significant difference in the risk of UC‐related hospitalisation [IFX vs. ADA; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–1.51], corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68–1.06) and serious infections (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.29–1.34) between IFX‐ and ADA‐treated patients; the number of surgical events was very small. On IPTW analysis, risk of corticosteroid use was significantly lower in IFX – as compared to ADA – treated patients (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68–0.99). Results were stable on multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIn a large retrospective cohort of patients with UC who were new users of anti‐TNF agents, IFX‐treated patients may have lower corticosteroid use than ADA‐treated patients, but risk of hospitalisation and serious infections were comparable.

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.

ObjectivesPerformance measurement is used by health care providers, payers, and patients. Historically accomplished using administrative data, registries are used increasingly to track and improve care. We assess how measured diabetes care quality differs when calculated using claims versus registry.Data Sources/Study SettingCross‐sectional analysis of administrative claims and electronic health records (EHRs) of patients in a multispecialty integrated health system in 2012 (n = 368,883).Study DesignWe calculated percent of patients attaining glycohemoglobin <8.0 percent, LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL, blood pressure <140/90 mmHg, and nonsmoking (D4) in cohorts, identified by Medicare Accountable Care Organization/Minnesota Community Measures (ACO‐MNCM; claims‐based), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS; claims‐based), and registry (EHR‐based).Data Collection/Extraction MethodsClaims were linked to EHR to create a dataset of performance‐eligible patients.Principal FindingsACO‐MNCM, HEDIS, and registry identified 6,475, 6,989, and 6,425 measurement‐eligible patients. Half were common among the methods; discrepancies were due to attribution, age restriction, and encounter requirements. D4 attainment was lower in ACO‐MNCM (36.09 percent) and HEDIS (37.51 percent) compared to registry (43.74 percent) cohorts.ConclusionsRegistry‐ and claims‐based performance measurement methods identify different patients, resulting in different rates of quality metric attainment with implications for innovative population health management.

Background There is significant practice variation in oral anticoagulation ( OAC ) use following catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. It is not clear whether the risk of cardioembolism increases after discontinuation of OAC following catheter ablation. Methods and Results We identified 6886 patients within a large national administrative claims database who underwent catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2014. We assessed the effect of time off of OAC by CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score (after adjusting for other comorbidities) on risk of cardioembolism, using Cox proportional hazards models. There was an increase in the use of non–vitamin K OAC after ablation from 0% in 2005 to 69.8% in 2014. OAC discontinuation was high, with only 60.5% and 31.3% of patients remaining on OAC at 3 and 12 months, respectively. The rate of discontinuation was higher in low‐risk patients (82% versus 62.5% at 12 months for CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c 0–1 versus ≥2, respectively; P <0.001). Stroke occurred in 1.4% of patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c ≥2 and 0.3% of those with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c 0 or 1 over the study follow‐up. The risk of cardioembolism in the first 3 months after ablation was increased among those with any time off OAC (hazard ratio 8.06 [95% CI 1.53–42.3], P <0.05). The risk of cardioembolism beyond 3 months was increased with OAC discontinuation among high‐risk patients (hazard ratio 2.48 [95% CI 1.11–5.52], P <0.05) but not low‐risk patients. Conclusion The overall risk of stroke in postablation patients is low; however, OAC discontinuation after ablation is common and is associated with increased risk of cardioembolism for all patients within the first 3 months and for high‐risk patients in the long term. Continuing OAC for at least 3 months in all patients and indefinitely in high‐risk patients appears to be the safest strategy.