Values and preferences towards the use of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin during pregnancy: a convergent mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the decision analysis in shared decision making for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy (DASH-TOP) study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals' preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals' preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy. METHODS: Design: Convergent mixed-methods. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk. INTERVENTION: A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy. ANALYSIS: Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke's pentad of motives framework: act (what needs to be done), scene (patient's context), agent (perspectives and influence of people involved in the decision), agency (aspects of the medication), and purpose (patient's goals). We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance. RESULTS: We comprehensively determined preferences for using LMWH by pregnant individuals at risk of VTE: through value elicitation exercises we found that the least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a 'healthy pregnancy'); through interviews we found that: previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks were described (agency). For participants, the main goal of using LMWH was avoiding any risks in pregnancy (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance and discordance between health states and motives. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy.

Anticoagulant Therapy for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH. DESIGN: Cohort-state transition decision analytic model. DATA SOURCES: Network meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH. TARGET POPULATION: Adult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: Strategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493 246. In a scenario analysis using "real-world" drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50 053 per QALY. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: An assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled. CONCLUSION: The 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Assessment of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis shared decision-making intervention (DASH-TOP) using the decisional conflict scale: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and death. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite being the standard of care to prevent VTE, comes with some challenges. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are recommended to support patients and clinicians in making preference-sensitive decisions. The quality of the SDM process has been widely assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Our aim is to report participants' perspectives of each of the components of an SDM intervention (DASH-TOP) in relation to the different subscales of the DCS. METHODS: Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program. INTERVENTION: We randomly divided the participants in three groups: Group 1 received one component (evidence -based information), Group 2 received two components (first component and value elicitation exercises), and Group 3 received all three components (the first two and a decision analysis recommendation) of the SDM intervention. ANALYSIS: For the quantitative strand, we used a non-parametric test to analyze the differences in the DCS subscales between the three groups. For the qualitative strand, we conducted a content analysis using the decisional conflict domains to deductively categorize the responses. RESULTS: Groups that received more intervention components experienced less conflict and better decision-making quality, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The decision analysis recommendation improved the efficacy with the decision-making process, however there are some challenges when implementing it in clinical practice. The uncertainty subscale showed a high decisional conflict for all three groups; contributing factors included low certainty of the evidence-based information provided and a perceived small effect of the drug to reduce the risk of a VTE event. CONCLUSIONS: The DASH-TOP intervention reduced decisional conflict in the decision -making process, with decision analysis being the most effective component to improve the quality of the decision. There is a need for more implementation research to improve the delivery of SDM interventions in the clinical encounter.

Design and rationale for the supermarket and web-based intervention targeting nutrition (SuperWIN) for cardiovascular risk reduction trial.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of chronic diseases is increasing largely due to suboptimal dietary habits. It is not known whether individualized, supermarket-based, nutrition education delivered by registered dietitians, utilizing the advantages of the in-store and online environments, and electronically collected purchasing data, can increase dietary quality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The supermarket and web-based intervention targeting nutrition (SuperWIN) for cardiovascular risk reduction trial is a randomized, controlled dietary intervention study. Adults identified from a primary care network with 1 or more risk factors were randomized at their preferred store to: (1) standard of care plus individualized, point- of-purchase nutrition education; (2) standard of care plus individualized, point- of-purchase nutrition education enhanced with online shopping technologies and training; or (3) standard of care alone. Educational sessions within each store's clinic and aisles, emphasized the dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) diet. The primary assessment was an intention-to-treat comparison on the effects of the dietary interventions on mean change in DASH score (90-point range) from baseline to 3 months (post-intervention). Additional outcomes included blood pressure, lipids, weight, purchasing behavior, food literacy, and intervention feedback. Between April 2019 to February 2021, 267 participants were randomized (20 excluded due to coronavirus disease pandemic). Median age was 58 years, 69% were female, 64% had a college degree, 53% worked full-time, 64% were obese, 73% were treated with blood pressure and 42% with cholesterol medications, and most had low-to-moderate diet quality. CONCLUSION: The SuperWIN trial was designed to provide a rigorous evaluation of the efficacy of 2 novel, comprehensive, supermarket-based dietary intervention programs.

Electronic health record-embedded decision support to reduce stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation - Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common significant cardiac rhythm disorder and is a powerful common risk factor for stroke. Randomized trials have demonstrated that anticoagulation can reduce the risk of stroke in patients with AF. Yet, there continues to be widespread underutilization of this therapy. To address this practice gap locally and improve efforts to reduce the risk of stroke for patients with AF in our health system, we have designed a study to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool (AFDST) embedded within our electronic health record. METHODS: Our intervention is provider-facing and focused on decision support. The clinical setting is ambulatory patients being seen by primary care physicians. Patients include those with both incident and prevalent AF. This randomized, prospective trial will enroll 800 patients in our University of Cincinnati Health System who are currently receiving less than optimal anticoagulation therapy as determined by the AFDST. Patients will be randomized to one of two arms - 1) usual care, in which the AFDST is available for use; 2) addition of a best practice advisory (BPA) to the AFDST notifying the clinician that their patient stands to gain a significant benefit from a change in their current thromboprophylactic therapy. RESULTS: The primary outcome is effectiveness of the BPA measured by change to "appropriate thromboprophylaxis" based on the AFDST recommendation at 3 months post randomization. Secondary endpoints include Reach and Adoption, from the RE-AIM framework for implementation studies. Sample size is based upon an improvement from inappropriate to appropriate anticoagulation therapy estimated at 4% in the usual care arm and ≥10% in the experimental arm. CONCLUSION: Our goal is to examine whether addition of a BPA to an AFDST focused on primary care physicians in an ambulatory care setting will improve "appropriate thromboprophylaxis" compared with usual care. Results will be examined at 3 months post randomization and at the end of the study to evaluate durability of changes. We expect to complete patient enrollment by the end of June 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04099485.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Adherence Promotion Strategies to Improve Rejection Rates in Adolescent Kidney Transplant Recipients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Nonadherence to medical regimens increases the risk of graft loss among adolescent and young adult recipients of kidney transplants. Interventions that improve adherence may decrease rejection rates, but their perceived costs are a barrier to clinical implementation. We developed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of an adherence promotion strategy, the Medication Adherence Promotion System (MAPS). STUDY DESIGN: Simulation-based. Data sources included published articles indexed in Medline or referenced in bibliographies of relevant English-language articles. Data on costs and outcomes were taken from a single clinical center. SETTING & POPULATION: US adolescent patients after their first kidney transplant. INTERVENTION: Usual posttransplant care versus usual care plus MAPS. OUTCOME: Effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs measured in 2020 US dollars. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME: Markov state transition decision model. We used a health care system perspective with a lifelong time horizon. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, MAPS was more effective and less costly than usual care. MAPS cost $9,106 per patient less than usual care and resulted in a gain of 0.32 QALYs. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, MAPS was cost saving 100% of the time. Extending results to a program level with 100 patients, any adherence promotion intervention similar in effectiveness to MAPS would cost less than $50,000/QALY if the start-up costs were <$2.5 million and annual costs <$188,000. Strategies with costs similar to MAPS that reduce the risk of rejection by as little as 3% would also have similar cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Estimates of components and costs for MAPS were based on a single center. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence promotion strategies with costs similar to MAPS can be cost-effective as long as they reduce rejection rates by at least 3%. This model can be applied to study the cost-effectiveness of adherence promotion strategies with varying costs and outcomes.

Prescribing of anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in primary care.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in primary care patients. Many patients who could benefit from anticoagulation do not receive it. The objective of this study was to describe anticoagulation prescribing by primary care physicians. We conducted an observational study in the Cleveland Clinic Health System among patients with AF and ≥ 1 primary care appointment between 2015 and 2018 and their physicians. We estimated differences in the odds of an eligible patient receiving anticoagulation versus not and a DOAC versus warfarin using two mixed effects logistic regression models, adjusted for patient sociodemographic factors, history of falls or dementia, and CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. We categorized physicians into prescribing tertiles, based on their adjusted prescribing rate, which we included as predictors in the models. Among 5253 patients, 47% received anticoagulation. Of those, 56% received a DOAC. CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were not associated with anticoagulation prescription. Black race was negatively associated with receiving anticoagulation overall (aOR:0.71; 95%CI:0.56-0.89) and with prescription for a DOAC (aOR:0.65; 95%CI:0.45-0.93). Among 195 physicians, the anticoagulation prescribing rate ranged from 27% to 57% and DOAC rates ranged from 34% to 69%. Physician prescribing tertile was associated with odds of a patient receiving anticoagulation overall (aOR:1.51; 95%CI: 1.13-2.01 for the highest versus lowest tertile), but not DOAC prescriptions. When prescribing anticoagulation, physicians appear not to consider risk of stroke or bleeding but patient race is an important determinant. Seeing a physician with a high anticoagulation prescribing rate was strongly associated with a patient receiving it, suggesting a lack of individualization.

Women's values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is an important cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the cornerstone of prophylaxis and treatment of thrombotic events during pregnancy. LMWH has fewer adverse effects than other anticoagulants, does not cross the placenta, and is safe for the fetus. However, the use of LMWH during pregnancy is sensitive to womens' underlying preferences. The objective of this review is to systematically assess women's values and preferences research evidence on this topic. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases from inception to March 2022, and included studies examining values and preferences of using LMWH among pregnant women at risk of VTE. We followed a convergent integrated mixed-methods design to compare and contrast quantitative outcomes (utility and non-utility measures) and qualitative findings. We assessed the certainty of the values and preferences evidence with the GRADE approach for quantitative findings, and with GRADE-CERqual for qualitative evidence. Results were presented in a conjoint display. RESULTS: We screened 3,393 references and identified seven eligible studies. The mixed methods analysis resulted in four themes. Datasets confirmed each other in that: 1) the majority of women consider that benefits of treatment outweigh the inconveniences of daily injections; and 2) main concerns around medication are safety and injections administration. Quantitative outcomes expanded on the qualitative findings in that: 3) participants who perceived a higher risk of VTE were more willing to take LMWH. Finally, we found a discrepancy between the datasets around: 4) the amount of information preferred to make the decision; however, qualitative data expanded to clarify that women prefer making informed decisions and receive support from their clinician in their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately confident that in the context of pregnancy, using LMWH is preferred by women given its net beneficial balance. Integrating data from different sources of evidence, and representing them in a jointly manner helps to identify patient's values and preferences. Our results may inform clinical practice guidelines and support shared decision-making process in the clinical encounter for the management of VTE in the context of pregnancy.

Ischemic Stroke and Bleeding: Clinical Benefit of Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation After Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background and Purpose- Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are at risk for ischemic events. While risk calculators (CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED) have been validated to assess risk for ischemic stroke and major bleeding in AF patients, decisions about anticoagulation must consider the net clinical benefit of anticoagulation. Furthermore, stroke and bleeding risk are highly correlated, making decisions more difficult. Methods- We examined patients in the GERFHS III study (Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors for Hemorrhagic Stroke)-a population-based retrospective study of spontaneous ICH patients without a structural or traumatic cause in the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky region between July 2008 and December 2012. CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-B(L)ED (minus L because labile international normalized ratio was unavailable) scores were calculated for ICH patients with AF. Using a Markov state transition model, we estimated net clinical benefit of anticoagulation relative to no treatment in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We defined minimal clinically relevant benefit as 0.1 QALYs. Results- Among 1186 cases of spontaneous ICH, 95 cases had AF and met our survival criteria. Within 1 year, 8 of 95 (8%) would be expected to have a major bleeding event on anticoagulation, and 5 of 95 (5%) of patients would be expected to have an ischemic stroke off anticoagulation. Sixty-eight of 95 (71%) patients would have higher risk for major bleeding than for ischemic stroke. Anticoagulation with directly acting anticoagulants would result in no clinically significant gain or loss in 73%. Roughly 12% would gain >0.1 QALYs, and 15% would lose >0.1 QALYs. Among patients receiving aspirin, most have no significant net clinical benefit or loss. Overall, anticoagulation of the entire cohort would result in an aggregate loss of 0.92 QALYs. Conclusions- Our analysis suggests that universal anticoagulation after ICH would be associated with a net loss of QALY. Additional factors should be considered before anticoagulating patients with AF after ICH. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00930280.

Cost-effectiveness of Using Kidneys From HCV-Viremic Donors for Transplantation Into HCV-Uninfected Recipients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Less than 4% of patients with kidney failure receive kidney transplants. Although discard rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic kidneys are declining, ~39% of HCV-viremic kidneys donated between 2018 and 2019 were discarded. Highly effective antiviral agents are now available to treat chronic HCV infection. Thus, our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of transplanting kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-uninfected recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Markov state transition decision model. Data sources include Medline search results, bibliographies from relevant English language articles, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, and the US Renal Data System. SETTING & POPULATION: US patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis who are on kidney transplant waiting lists. INTERVENTION(S): Transplantation with an HCV-unexposed kidney versus transplantation with an HCV-viremic kidney and HCV treatment. OUTCOMES: Effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years and costs measured in 2018 US dollars. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, AND TIMEFRAME: We used a health care system perspective with a lifelong time horizon. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, transplantation with an HCV-viremic kidney was more effective and less costly than transplantation with an HCV-unexposed kidney because of the longer waiting times for HCV-unexposed kidneys, the substantial excess mortality risk while receiving dialysis, and the high efficacy of direct-acting antiviral agents for HCV infection. Transplantation with an HCV-viremic kidney was also preferred in sensitivity analyses of multiple model parameters. The strategy remained cost-effective unless waiting list time for an HCV-viremic kidney exceeded 3.1 years compared with the base-case value of 1.56 year. LIMITATIONS: Estimates of waiting times for patients willing to accept an HCV-viremic kidney were based on data for patients who received HCV-viremic kidney transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-uninfected recipients increased quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduced costs compared with a strategy of transplanting kidneys from HCV-unexposed donors.

Cervical spine evaluation in pediatric trauma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The emergent evaluation of children with suspected traumatic cervical spine injuries (CSI) remains a challenge. Pediatric clinical pathways have been developed to stratify the risk of CSI and guide computed tomography (CT) utilization. The cost-effectiveness of their application has not been evaluated. Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of three common strategies for the evaluation of children with suspected CSI after blunt injury. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model comparing these strategies to estimate clinical outcomes and costs for a hypothetical population of 0-17 year old patients with blunt neck trauma. Strategies included: 1) clinical pathway to stratify risk using NEXUS criteria and determine need for diagnostic testing; 2) screening radiographs as a first diagnostic; and 3) immediate CT scanning for all patients. We measured effectiveness with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs with 2018 U.S. dollars. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: The use of the clinical pathway results in a gain of 0.04 QALYs and a cost saving of $2800 compared with immediate CT scanning of all patients. Use of the clinical pathway was less costly and more effective than immediate CT scan as long as the sensitivity of the clinical prediction rule was greater than 87% and when the sensitivity of x-ray was greater than 84%. CONCLUSION: A strategy using a clinical pathway to first stratify risk before further diagnostic testing was less costly and more effective than either performing CT scanning or screening cervical radiographs on all patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Universal Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in the Era of Direct-Acting, Pangenotypic Treatment Regimens.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most persons infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the United States were born from 1945 through 1965; testing is recommended for this cohort. However, HCV incidence is increasing among younger persons in many parts of the country and treatment is recommended for all adults with HCV infection. We aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of universal 1-time screening for HCV infection in all adults living in the United States and to determine the prevalence of HCV antibody above which HCV testing is cost effective. METHODS: We developed a Markov state transition model to estimate the effects of universal 1-time screening of adults 18 years or older in the United States, compared with the current guideline-based strategy of screening adults born from 1945 through 1965. We compared potential outcomes of 1-time universal screening of adults or birth cohort screening followed by antiviral treatment of those with HCV infection vs no screening. We measured effectiveness with quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and costs with 2017 US dollars. RESULTS: Based on our model, universal 1-time screening of US residents with a general population prevalence of HCV antibody greater than 0.07% cost less than $50,000/QALY compared with a strategy of no screening. Compared with 1-time birth cohort screening, universal 1-time screening and treatment cost $11,378/QALY gained. Universal screening was cost effective compared with birth cohort screening when the prevalence of HCV antibody positivity was greater than 0.07% among adults not in the cohort born from 1945 through 1965. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Markov state transition model, we found a strategy of universal 1-time screening for chronic HCV infection to be cost effective compared with either no screening or birth cohort-based screening alone.

Transplanting Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Versus Uninfected Kidneys Into Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Recipients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Direct-acting antiviral agents are now available to treat chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Objective: To examine whether it is more cost-effective to transplant HCV-infected or HCV-uninfected kidneys into HCV-infected patients. Design: Markov state-transition decision model. Data Sources: MEDLINE searches and bibliographies from relevant English-language articles. Target Population: HCV-infected patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis in the United States. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care system. Intervention: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment versus transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment. Outcome Measures: Effectiveness, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs, measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment was more effective and less costly than transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment, largely because of longer wait times for uninfected kidneys. A typical 57.8-year-old patient receiving hemodialysis would gain an average of 0.50 QALY at a lifetime cost savings of $41 591. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment continued to be preferred in sensitivity analyses of many model parameters. Transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment was not preferred unless the additional wait time for an uninfected kidney was less than 161 days. Limitation: The study did not consider the benefit of decreased HCV transmission from treating HCV-infected patients. Conclusion: Transplanting HCV-infected kidneys into HCV-infected patients increased quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduced costs compared with transplanting HCV-uninfected kidneys into HCV-infected patients. Primary Funding Source: Merck Sharp & Dohme and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Effect of Variation in Published Stroke Rates on the Net Clinical Benefit of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Background: Stroke rates in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who are not receiving anticoagulant therapy vary widely across published studies; the resulting effect on the net clinical benefit of anticoagulation in AF is unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of variation in published AF stroke rates on the net clinical benefit of anticoagulation. Design: Markov model decision analysis. Warfarin was the base case, and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were modeled in a secondary analysis. Setting: Community-dwelling adults. Patients: 33 434 adults with incident AF. Measurements: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Of the 33 434 patients, 27 179 had a CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, and vascular disease) score of 2 or more. The population benefit of warfarin anticoagulation for these patients was least using stroke rates from the ATRIA (AnTicoagulation and Risk Factors In Atrial Fibrillation) study and greatest using those from the Danish National Patient Registry (6290 QALYs [95% CI, ±2.3%] vs. 24 110 QALYs [CI, ±1.9%]; P < 0.001). The optimal CHA2DS2-VASc score threshold for anticoagulation was 3 or more using stroke rates from ATRIA, 2 or more using those from the Swedish AF cohort study, 1 or more using those from the SPORTIF (Stroke Prevention using ORal Thrombin Inhibitor in atrial Fibrillation) study, and 0 or more using those from the Danish National Patient Registry. Accounting for lower rates of NOAC-associated intracranial hemorrhage decreased optimal CHA2DS2-VASc score thresholds, but these thresholds still varied widely. Limitation: Measured benefit may not generalize to other populations. Conclusion: Variation in published AF stroke rates for patients not receiving anticoagulant therapy results in multifold variation in the net clinical benefit of anticoagulation. Guidelines should better reflect the uncertainty in current thresholds of stroke risk score for recommending anticoagulation. Primary Funding Source: None.

Shared decision-making tool for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation - A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) remains a national challenge. METHODS: We hypothesized that a shared decision-making interaction facilitated by an Atrial Fibrillation Shared Decision Making Tool (AFSDM) would improve patient knowledge about atrial fibrillation, and the risks and benefits of various treatment options for stroke prevention; increase satisfaction with the decision-making process; improve the therapeutic alliance between patient and the clinical care team; and increase medication adherence. Using a pre- and post-visit study design, we enrolled 76 patients and completed 2 office visits and 1-month telephone follow-up for 65 patients being seen in our Arrhythmia Clinic over the 1-year period (July 2016 through June 2017). Our primary outcome measure was change in decisional conflict between the first and second clinical visit. RESULTS: Decisional conflict decreased from an average of 31 to 9. Mean change was 22.3 (95% CI, 25.7 - 37.1), corresponding to an effect size of 0.94 standard deviations. Satisfaction with decision increased from 4.0 to 4.5, measures of therapeutic alliance with the care team (Kim Alliance scale) increased from 100.1 to 103.1, and satisfaction with provider increased from 4.2 to 4.5 (P < .0001 for all measures). AF knowledge assessment scores increased from 8.4 to 9.1, and knowledge about personal stroke and bleeding risk increased from 1 to 1.5 (P < .0001). Finally, medication adherence improved as reflected by an increase in the Morisky Medication Adherence scale from 5.9 to 6.4 (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: A shared decision-making interaction, facilitated by an AFSDM can significantly improve multiple measures of decision-making quality, leading to improved medication adherence and patient satisfaction.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Adherence-Promotion Intervention for Children With Leukemia: A Markov Model-Based Simulation.

Objective: Improving medication adherence among children with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) has the potential to reduce relapse rates but requires an investment in resources. An economic evaluation is needed to understand the potential costs and benefits of delivering adherence-promotion interventions (APIs) as part of standard clinical care. Methods: A Markov decision analytic model was used to simulate the potential incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to be gained from an API for children with B-ALL in first continuous remission compared with treatment as usual (TAU, no intervention). Model parameter estimates were informed by previously published studies. The primary outcome was incremental cost (2015 US$) per QALY gained for API compared with TAU. Results: The model predicts the API to result in superior health outcomes (4.87 vs. 4.86 QALYs) and cost savings ($43,540.73 vs. $46,675.71) as compared with TAU, and simulations indicate that, across a range of plausible parameter estimates, there is a 95% chance that the API is more effective and less costly than TAU. The API was estimated to remain more effective and less costly than TAU in situations where the prevalence of nonadherence exceeds 32% and when API improves baseline adherence in at least 3% of patients. Conclusions: Providing APIs to children with B-ALL may improve health outcomes and save costs over a 6-year period.

Prehospital Triage of Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients to an Intravenous tPA-Ready versus Endovascular-Ready Hospital: A Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: American Stroke Association guidelines for prehospital acute ischemic stroke recommend against bypassing an intravenous tPA-ready hospital (IRH), if additional transportation time to an endovascular-ready hospital (ERH) exceeds 15-20 min. However, it is unknown when the benefit of potential endovascular therapy at an ERH outweighs the harm from delaying intravenous therapy at a closer IRH, especially since large vessel occlusion (LVO) status is initially unknown. We hypothesized that current time recommendations for IRH bypass are too short to achieve optimal outcomes for certain patient populations. METHODS: A decision analysis model was constructed using population-based databases, a detailed literature review, and interventional trial data containing time-dependent modified Rankin Scale distributions. The base case was triaged by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 110 min after stroke onset and had a 23.6% LVO rate. Base case triage choices were (1) transport to the closest IRH (12 min), (2) transport to the ERH (60 min) bypassing the IRH, or (3) apply the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool and transport to the ERH if positive for LVO. Outcomes were assessed using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed for all major variables, and alternative prehospital stroke scales were assessed. RESULTS: In the base case, transport to the IRH was the optimal choice with an expected outcome of 8.47 QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that transport to the ERH was superior until bypass time exceeded 44 additional minutes, or when the onset to EMS triage interval exceeded 99 min. As the probability of LVO increased, ERH transport was optimal at longer onset to EMS triage intervals. The optimal triage strategy was highly dependent on specific interactions between the IRH transportation time, ERH transportation time, and onset to EMS triage interval. CONCLUSIONS: No single time difference between IRH and ERH transportation optimizes triage for all patients. Allowable IRH bypass time should be increased and acute ischemic stroke guidelines should incorporate the onset to EMS triage interval, IRH transportation time, and ERH transportation time.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac in adolescents undergoing idiopathic scoliosis surgery.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols increasingly use multimodal analgesia after major surgeries with intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac, despite no documented cost-effectiveness of these strategies. AIMS: The goal of this prospective cohort study was to model cost-effectiveness of adding acetaminophen or acetaminophen + ketorolac to opioids for postoperative outcomes in children having scoliosis surgery. METHODS: Of 106 postsurgical children, 36 received only opioids, 26 received intravenous acetaminophen, and 44 received acetaminophen + ketorolac as analgesia adjuncts. Costs were calculated in 2015 US $. Decision analytic model was constructed with Decision Maker® software. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed with effectiveness defined as avoidance of opioid adverse effects. RESULTS: The groups were comparable demographically. Compared with opioids-only strategy, subjects in the intravenous acetaminophen + ketorolac strategy consumed less opioids (P = .002; difference in mean morphine consumption on postoperative days 1 and 2 was -0.44 mg/kg (95% CI -0.72 to -0.16); tolerated meals earlier (P < .001; RR 0.250 (0.112-0.556)) and had less constipation (P < .001; RR 0.226 (0.094-0.546)). Base-case analysis showed that of the 3 strategies, use of opioids alone is both most costly and least effective, opioids + intravenous acetaminophen is intermediate in both cost and effectiveness; and opioids + intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac is the least expensive and most effective strategy. The addition of intravenous acetaminophen with or without ketorolac to an opioid-only strategy saves $510-$947 per patient undergoing spine surgery and decreases opioid side effects. CONCLUSION: Intravenous acetaminophen with or without ketorolac reduced opioid consumption, opioid-related adverse effects, length of stay, and thereby cost of care following idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents compared with opioids-alone postoperative analgesia strategy.

Atrial fibrillation decision support tool: Population perspective.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) remains a national challenge. The recent availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with comparable efficacy and improved safety compared with warfarin alters the balance between risk factors for stroke and benefit of anticoagulation. Our objective was to examine the impact of DOACs as an alternative to warfarin on the net benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) in a real-world population of AF patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with paroxysmal or persistent nonvalvular AF. We updated an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool (AFDST) to include DOACs as treatment options. The tool generates patient-specific recommendations based upon individual patient risk factor profiles for stroke and major bleeding using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated for each treatment strategy by a decision analytic model. The setting included inpatient and ambulatory sites in an academic health center in the midwestern United States. The study involved 5,121 adults with nonvalvular AF seen for any ambulatory visit or inpatient hospitalization over the 1-year period (January through December 2016). Outcome measure was net clinical benefit in QALYs. RESULTS: When DOACs are a therapeutic option, the AFDST recommends OAT for 4,134 (81%) patients and no antithrombotic therapy or aspirin for 489 (9%). A strong recommendation for OAT could not be made in 498 (10%) patients. When warfarin is the only option, OAT is recommended for 3,228 (63%) patients and no antithrombotic therapy or aspirin for 973 (19%). A strong recommendation for OAT could not be made in 920 (18%) patients. In total, 1,508 QALYs could be gained if treatment were changed to that recommended by the AFDST. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of DOACs increases the proportion of patients for whom oral anticoagulation therapy is recommended in a real-world cohort of AF patients and increased projected QALYs by more than 1,500 when all patients are receiving thromboprophylaxis as recommended by the AFDST compared with current treatment.

Combined aspirin and anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.

The combined use of aspirin and oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) has been questioned due to an increased risk of major bleeding with little to no benefit in preventing ischemic events. (1) To better understand patterns and indications for combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy and identify patients who might reasonably be treated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy alone. (2) To perform an updated literature review regarding the use of combined antiplatelet and OAC therapy in patients with AF and stable CAD. Retrospective review. Patients within the University of Cincinnati Health System with a diagnosis of non-valvular AF, excluding those with acute coronary syndrome or revascularization within the last 12 months. Numbers and indications for combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy and sequence of events leading to the initiation of each. Of 948 patients receiving OAC, 430 (45 %) were receiving concomitant OAC and aspirin. Among patients receiving combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, 49 and 42 % of patients respectively, had CAD or DM. In a more detailed analysis including chart review of 219 patients receiving combined OAC and aspirin, 27 % had a diagnosis of CAD and 14 % had a diagnosis of DM prior to the development of AF. These patients were initially treated with aspirin. Warfarin was added when they subsequently developed AF but aspirin wasn't discontinued. A surprisingly large proportion of patients (22.8 %) had no obvious indication for dual therapy. Prior myocardial infarction, CAD, vascular disease and DM (among others) increase the likelihood of receiving combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy among patients with AF. A literature review suggests this may lead to increased major bleeding with little benefit in decreasing either AF-related stroke or cardiovascular events.