Resource use and cost associated with computerized decision support system and usual care in managing patients with atrial fibrillation: analysis of IMPACT-AF randomized trial data.

BACKGROUND: IMPACT-AF is a prospective, randomized, cluster design trial comparing atrial fibrillation (AF) management with a computerized decision support system (CDS) to usual care (control) in the primary care setting of Nova Scotia, Canada. The objective of this analysis was to compare the resource use and costs between CDS and usual care groups. METHODS: Case costing data, 12-month self-administered questionnaires, and monthly diaries from IMPACT-AF were used in this analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to compare costs and resource use between groups. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars and cover the 12-month period of participation in the study. RESULTS: A total of 1,145 patients enrolled in the trial. Case costing data were available for 466 participants (41.1%), 12-month self-administered questionnaire data for 635 participants (56.0%) and monthly diary data for 223 participants (19.7%). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations comprised the most expensive component of AF care. Across all three datasets, there were no statistically significant differences in costs or resource use between CDS and usual care groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no significant differences in resource use or costs among CDS and usual care groups in the IMPACT-AF trial, this study provides insight into the methodology and practical challenges of collecting economic data alongside a trial. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT01927367, date of registration: 2013-08-20).

Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): A cluster randomized trial of a computerized clinical decision support tool.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools designed to digest, filter, organize, and present health data are becoming essential in providing clinical and cost-effective care. Many are not rigorously evaluated for benefit before implementation. We assessed whether computerized CDS for primary care providers would improve atrial fibrillation (AF) management and outcomes as compared to usual care. METHODS: Overall, 203 primary care providers were recruited, randomized, and then cluster stratified by location (urban, rural) to usual care (n = 99) or CDS (n = 104). Providers recruited 1,145 adult patients with AF to participate. The intervention was access to an evidenced-based, point-of-care computerized CDS designed to support guideline-based AF management. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of unplanned cardiovascular hospitalizations and AF-related emergency department visits; the primary safety outcome was major bleeding, both over 1 year. Patients were the units of intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: No significant effects on the primary efficacy (130 control, 118 CDS, hazard ratio: 0.98 [95% CI 0.71-1.37], P = .926) or safety (n = 7 usual care, n = 8 CDS, 1.3% total, P = .939) outcomes were observed at 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: IMPACT-AF rigorously assessed a CDS tool in a highly representative sample of primary care providers and their patients; however, no impact on outcomes was observed. Considering the proliferating use of CDS applications, this study highlights the need for efficacy assessments prior to adoption and clinical implementation.

A counseling video with pre- and posttesting and checklist for oral immunotherapy consent improves participant knowledge.

BACKGROUND: The use of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies has been expanding in North America. Although families are interested in this therapeutic approach, misconceptions are common; therefore, education of these families is essential before obtaining informed consent. OBJECTIVE: To improve parent and patient knowledge about OIT by investigating the use of a counseling video (CV) and checklist. METHODS: This retrospective review was conducted in a pediatric outpatient clinic. After consultation and review of the information package, 467 parents and patients (>12 years old) performed pre- and posttests in conjunction with a CV during a checklist-based 2-hour counseling session for OIT. RESULTS: The evaluation of pre- and posttest performance suggested an improvement in the ability of patients to answer relevant questions pertaining to OIT. This was statistically significant for all groups, including mothers, fathers, and children (P < .001). Mothers performed better than fathers and patients in mean number of correct responses in both pre- and posttest scores and in posttest scores after adjustment for pretest scores. Fathers performed better than patients in both pre- and posttest scores but not on posttest scores after adjustment for pretest scores. A checklist-based format resulted in 100% of all major topics being discussed in a 1-hour discussion. Reported satisfaction was high among the participants. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate the use of a CV in conjunction with pre- and posttesting to educate families about the key principles of OIT. We suggest that as part of extensive counseling for OIT, an educational video is beneficial in a pediatric outpatient clinic.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy With or Without H1 and H2 Antihistamine Premedication for Peanut Allergy (PISCES): A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) are associated with side effects, and there is a lack of evidence addressing how to mitigate them. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether premedication with desloratadine and ranitidine results in fewer side effects during peanut OIT/desensitization. METHODS: A total of 43 patients with peanut allergy (mean age, 7.6 ± 2.1 years, 37% females, 63% males, baseline eliciting dose, 33 ± 26 mg) were randomized to OIT with or without concomitant H1 and H2 antihistamine blockade, or double-placebo. Patients, study staff/investigators, and statisticians were blinded. The primary outcomes were the frequency and severity of OIT-induced adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and eliciting doses to blinded food challenge. RESULTS: Adverse reactions occurred more in the OIT groups compared with the double-placebo group (OIT with antihistamines vs double-placebo hazard ratio, 3.75 [95% CI, 2.79-4.72]; OIT with placebo antihistamines vs double-placebo, hazard ratio, 4.62 [95% CI, 3.61-5.62]). Patients given antihistamines cotreatment with OIT had a similar risk of adverse events compared with those who did not use antihistamines with OIT (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.49-1.97]). OIT with and without antihistamines accelerated the incidence rate of adverse events compared with double-placebo (4.8 and 6.4 events per patient vs 3.5 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.36-4.56] and 2.04 [95% CI, 1.01-4.15], respectively). Antihistamines pretreatment modestly reduced the frequency of moderate to severe adverse reactions among OIT-treated groups (1.9 per patient vs 4.2 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.89]), primarily urticaria (0.6 vs 2.1 per patient) followed by abdominal pain (2.6 vs 4.2 per patient), but increased neuropsychiatric adverse events (primarily tiredness and sedation, 2.3 vs 0.7 per patient). Eliciting doses after treatment were similar in all groups. Quality of life improved similarly regardless of treatment with peanut OIT or placebo OIT. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut OIT with antihistamines modestly reduce the skin and gastrointestinal components of the high incidence of adverse reactions during OIT, and there are no clear differences in improvement in quality of life whether treated with OIT, OIT with antihistamines, or placebo OIT despite OIT being effective in inducing desensitization. Safer food allergy treatment approaches that importantly improve quality of life need to be proved in future robust randomized trials.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient-Reported Experience of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in the IMPACT-AF Clinical Trial.

Background The IMPACT-AF (Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) trial is a prospective, randomized, cluster design trial comparing atrial fibrillation management with a computerized clinical decision support system with usual care (control) in the primary care setting of Nova Scotia, Canada. The objective of this analysis was to assess and compare patient-reported health-related quality of life and patient-reported experience with atrial fibrillation care between clinical decision support and control groups. Methods and Results Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol 5-dimensional 5-level scale, whereas patient-reported experience was assessed using a self-administered satisfaction questionnaire, both assessed at baseline and 12 months. Health utilities were calculated using the Canadian EuroQol 5-dimensional 5-level value set. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were used to compare between groups. Among 1145 patients enrolled in the trial, 717 had complete EuroQol 5-dimensional 5-level data at baseline. The mean age of patients was 73.53 years, and 61.87% were men. Mean utilities at baseline were 0.809 (SD, 0.157) and 0.814 (SD, 0.157) for clinical decision support and control groups, respectively. At baseline, most patients in both groups reported being "very satisfied" with the care received for their atrial fibrillation. There were no statistically significant differences in utility scores or patient satisfaction between groups at 12 months. Conclusions Health-related quality of life of patients remained stable over 12 months, and there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction or utility scores between clinical decision support and control groups. Registration information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01927367.

Bridging anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin after interruption of warfarin therapy is associated with a residual anticoagulant effect prior to surgery.

Bridging anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is common in patients who require temporary interruption of warfarin before surgery or a procedure, but whether such patients have a residual anticoagulant effect just before a procedure is not known. Consecutive patients who received bridging anticoagulation with LMWH had anti-Xa levels measured just before a procedure. The proportion of patients with a residual anticoagulant effect, defined as an anti-Xa level > or = 0.10 IU/ml, was determined. Multivariable regression analysis identified predictors of a residual anticoagulant effect, expressed as an odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). A pre-procedure residual anticoagulant effect was detected in 12 of 73 (16%) patients overall, in 11 of 37 (30%) patients who received therapeutic-dose LMWH, and in 1 of 36 patients (3%) who received low-dose LMWH. Receiving therapeutic-dose LMWH (OR = 118.8; 95% CI: 5.8, 999.9), and increasing age (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.3, 12.5) were predictors of a residual pre-procedure anticoagulant effect. In patients who require bridging anticoagulation with LMWH, a residual anticoagulant effect from LMWH is detected in 1 of 6 patients, and receiving therapeutic-dose LMWH is the strongest predictor of such an effect.

Dosing practices and risk factors for bleeding in patients receiving enoxaparin for the treatment of an acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To describe dosing practices and to identify risk factors for bleeding in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who received treatment with enoxaparin. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Coronary care unit of a tertiary-care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with a discharge diagnosis of an ACS who received at least one dose of enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg, were eligible for this study. Enoxaparin dosing practices, factors that might influence the safety of enoxaparin administration, and bleeding events were documented. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of bleeding in this clinical setting. RESULTS: Of 208 patients with an ACS who received enoxaparin, 48 patients (23%) received a dose that was > 10% or < 10% of the recommended 1 mg/kg dose, 18 patients (9%) did not have body weight documentation to guide enoxaparin dosing, and 17 patients (8%) had significant renal impairment (serum creatinine > 150 micromol/L), with the potential for bioaccumulation of enoxaparin. There were 35 bleeding events (17%), of which 8 events (4%) were major. Risk factors for any bleeding (major or minor) were increasing patient age (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 2.20), coadministered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory or antiplatelet drug therapy (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.06 to 5.38), and number of enoxaparin doses (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.68). Risk factors for major bleeding were increasing patient age (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.05 to 6.28) and coadministered clopidogrel (OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 1.16 to 51.9). CONCLUSION: In this clinical practice assessment of patients with an ACS, the use of enoxaparin was suboptimal, with the potential to increase bleeding complications. Coadministered clopidogrel, other drugs that affect hemostasis, and increasing age conferred an increased bleeding risk.