RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The use of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors after acute myocardial infarction (MI) can reduce risks of subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, and stroke), yet medication persistence is suboptimal. Although copayment cost has been implicated as a factor influencing medication persistence, it remains unclear whether reducing or eliminating these costs can improve medication persistence and/or downstream clinical outcomes. DESIGN: ARTEMIS is a multicenter, cluster-randomized clinical trial designed to examine whether eliminating patient copayment for P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy affects medication persistence and clinical outcomes. We will enroll approximately 11,000 patients hospitalized for acute ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation MI at 300 hospitals. Choice and duration of treatment with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor will be determined by the treating physician. Hospitals randomized to the copayment intervention will provide vouchers to cover patients' copayments for their P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for up to 1 year after discharge. The coprimary end points are 1-year P2Y12 receptor inhibitor persistence and major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points include choice of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, patient-reported outcomes, and postdischarge cost of care. CONCLUSION: ARTEMIS will be the largest randomized assessment of a medication copayment reduction intervention on medication persistence, clinical outcomes, treatment selection, and cost of care after acute MI.
Assuntos
Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Custo Compartilhado de Seguro , Custos de Medicamentos , Gastos em Saúde , Adesão à Medicação , Infarto do Miocárdio/tratamento farmacológico , Antagonistas do Receptor Purinérgico P2Y/economia , Ticlopidina/análogos & derivados , Adenosina/economia , Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Clopidogrel , Apoio Financeiro , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Mortalidade , Análise Multivariada , Antagonistas do Receptor Purinérgico P2Y/uso terapêutico , Recidiva , Prevenção Secundária , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Ticagrelor , Ticlopidina/economia , Ticlopidina/uso terapêutico , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread heparin use in clinical practice, the associated development of thrombocytopenia is an underrecognized and undertreated complication. METHODS: We analyzed data from consecutive hospitalized patients treated with heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) for 4 days or longer to determine the incidence, predictors, prognostic significance, and management of "thrombocytopenia," defined as a platelet count less than 150 x 10(9)/L, reduction in platelet count of 50% or more from the admission level, or both. RESULTS: We enrolled 2420 patients (median age, 65.2 years; 43.8% women) in 48 US hospitals. Thrombocytopenia occurred in 881 patients (36.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5%-38.3%). Of those who developed thrombocytopenia, 5.1% died, compared with 1.6% of those without thrombocytopenia (odds ratio [OR], 3.4; 95% CI, 2.1-5.6; P< .001). Thrombocytopenia was also associated with greater risk of myocardial infarction (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-2.8; P< .001) and congestive heart failure (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; P= .01). After adjustment for important covariates, thrombocytopenia remained an independent predictor of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. A relative reduction in platelet count of more than 70% was the strongest independent predictor of death (OR, 13.4; 95% CI, 6.5-27.6; P< .001), followed by a relative reduction in platelet count of 50% to 70%, worse Killip class, occurrence of thromboembolic complications, older age, and longer duration of heparin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombocytopenia occurs frequently after prolonged heparin therapy and is strongly associated with worse short-term clinical outcome. The relative reduction in platelet count is a powerful independent predictor of all-cause mortality in hospitalized patients.
Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Plaquetas/efeitos dos fármacos , Heparina/efeitos adversos , Trombocitopenia/induzido quimicamente , Trombocitopenia/mortalidade , Idoso , Feminino , Seguimentos , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Contagem de Plaquetas , Prognóstico , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sudden death from cardiac causes remains a leading cause of death among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatment with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been proposed to improve the prognosis in such patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2521 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35 percent or less to conventional therapy for CHF plus placebo (847 patients), conventional therapy plus amiodarone (845 patients), or conventional therapy plus a conservatively programmed, shock-only, single-lead ICD (829 patients). Placebo and amiodarone were administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: The median LVEF in patients was 25 percent; 70 percent were in NYHA class II, and 30 percent were in class III CHF. The cause of CHF was ischemic in 52 percent and nonischemic in 48 percent. The median follow-up was 45.5 months. There were 244 deaths (29 percent) in the placebo group, 240 (28 percent) in the amiodarone group, and 182 (22 percent) in the ICD group. As compared with placebo, amiodarone was associated with a similar risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.06; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.53) and ICD therapy was associated with a decreased risk of death of 23 percent (0.77; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.007) and an absolute decrease in mortality of 7.2 percentage points after five years in the overall population. Results did not vary according to either ischemic or nonischemic causes of CHF, but they did vary according to the NYHA class. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent.