Characteristics, management, and blood pressure control in patients with apparent resistant hypertension in the US.

Background: Per treatment guidelines, resistant hypertension is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) while taking 3 concomitant antihypertensives (AHTs) or controlled BP while taking ≥4 AHTs. Characteristics, AHT therapy use, and BP control were analyzed in US patients with hypertension who were prescribed ≥3 classes of AHT medications. Methods: This retrospective analysis of the Optum® Electronic Health Record Database evaluated patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of hypertension classified based on the number of prescribed AHT medication classes (3, 4, or ≥5). For the primary analysis, uncontrolled hypertension was defined as systolic BP (SBP) ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥90 mmHg. For secondary analyses, uncontrolled hypertension was defined as SBP ≥130 mmHg or DBP ≥80 mmHg. Results: 207,705 patients with hypertension and concurrent use of ≥3 AHT medication classes were included. Diuretics, beta blockers, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, and CCBs were the most prescribed classes; thiazides and thiazide-like agents were the most prescribed diuretics. Among patients who were prescribed 3, 4, or ≥5 AHT medication classes, approximately 70% achieved a BP goal of <140/90 mmHg; approximately 40% achieved BP <130/80 mmHg. After ≥1 year of follow-up, the number of concurrent AHT medication classes was unchanged from baseline in the majority of patients and the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) was similar. Conclusions: This study illustrates suboptimal BP control in many patients with apparent resistant hypertension despite the use of multidrug regimens and suggests a need for new drug classes and regimens that effectively manage resistant hypertension.

Antiplatelet treatment patterns and outcomes of secondary stroke prevention in the United States.

Objective: Patients who have an ischemic stroke (IS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at risk of having a secondary stroke. Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) may be recommended for secondary stroke prevention (SSP), depending on severity and etiology. This study evaluated outpatient antiplatelet treatment patterns for SSP and outcomes after first hospitalization for IS/TIA among adults without atrial fibrillation in the United States. Materials and methods: This retrospective observational study utilized data from an adjudicated administrative health claims database. Eligible patients had an imputed National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale index event score ≤7. Over-the-counter medication use (eg, aspirin) was not captured. Results: Of 154,273 patients, 41,622 (27%) were prescribed antiplatelet therapy within 90 days of the event; 93.8% received SAPT, 6.1% received DAPT. The first line of antiplatelet therapy after discharge was started a mean of 17.0 days after the event; mean treatment duration was 61.9 days. The incidence rate for secondary IS was 5.53, 2.03, and 1.17 per person-year 90-days, 1-year, and 3-years following treatment initiation, respectively. Among patients matched for demographic and clinical characteristics, the risk of secondary IS was increased with DAPT versus SAPT (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.27 [1.20-1.34]; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Many patients were not prescribed or discontinued antiplatelet therapy within 90 days of hospitalization for IS/TIA and, in most cases, prescriptions were not compliant with SSP consensus guidelines. Patients remained at risk for IS, which was highest within 90 days. More effective strategies for SSP are needed to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Occurrence of Thromboembolic Events and Mortality Among Hospitalized Coronavirus 2019 Patients: Large Observational Cohort Study of Electronic Health Records.

Background Most symptoms of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are mild; however, some patients experience cardiovascular complications, including thromboembolic events and death. Data are needed to better inform prevention and treatment of these events. This analysis was designed to describe patient characteristics, medication use, thromboembolic events, and all-cause mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States. Methods This retrospective, observational cohort study identified adults hospitalized with COVID-19 (January 21, 2020-January 07, 2021) in the deidentified Optum COVID-19 Electronic Health Records dataset. Thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality were collected at any time during the variable follow-up period (up to 50 weeks). Results Of 181,995 COVID-19 patients who met eligibility criteria, 40,524 (22.3%) were hospitalized with COVID-19. Hospitalized patients had a mean age of 63 years and a Quan-Charlson comorbidity index of 1.3. Anticoagulants were used in 89.2% of patients during hospitalization and in 18.7% of postdischarge patients. Of hospitalized patients, 17.6% had a thromboembolic event during the entire follow-up period (mean time to the first event of 15 days), of whom 13.4% had an event during hospitalization; of discharged patients, 4.3% had a thromboembolic event (mean time from discharge to event of 43 days). Death during the follow-up period was reported in 15.0% of patients. Conclusions In this large, observational cohort study, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had high rates of thromboembolic events during hospitalization and in the postdischarge period; mortality was also high in this population. Anticoagulant use was common during hospitalization. These findings support further studies to optimize in-hospital and extended prophylaxis for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Real-World Analysis of Thromboembolic Events and Mortality of COVID-19 Outpatients in the United States.

Limited data are available on thromboembolic events (TEEs) and mortality in outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This retrospective, observational cohort study identified non-hospitalized COVID-19 outpatients (01/21/2020-01/07/2021) using de-identified Optum® COVID-19 Electronic Health Records data. Patient characteristics, occurrence of TEEs, all-cause mortality, and anticoagulant or thrombolytic medication use were evaluated. Of 1,246,067 patients with COVID-19 diagnosis, 141 471 met entry criteria. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46.1 (17.2) years, 56.8% were female, 72.9% Caucasian, 11.2% African American, and 11.1% Hispanic. Comorbidity burden was low (mean [SD] Quan-Charlson comorbidity index score of 0.43 [1.10]); however, of those with body mass index data, half were obese. During the follow-up period, a TEE occurred in 1.4%, with the proportion of patients with ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism being similar (approximately 0.4% each). All-cause mortality was 0.7%. Medications included corticosteroids (13.7%), anticoagulants (4.9%), and antiplatelets (2.9%). Overall, in this large cohort analysis, certain demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who experienced TEEs were identified and may help guide management decisions and future clinical trials for COVID-19 outpatients.

Healthcare costs of patients with cancer stratified by Khorana score risk levels.

AIMS: Patients with cancer are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which entails a high economic burden. The risk of cancer-associated VTE can be assessed using the Khorana score (KS), a validated VTE risk prediction algorithm. This study compared healthcare costs associated with different KS in a population of patients newly diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: The Optum Clinformatics DataMart database (01/01/2012-09/30/2017) was used to select adult patients with ≥1 hospitalization or ≥2 outpatient claims with a cancer diagnosis (index date) initiated on systemic therapy or radiation therapy. Patients were classified in mutually exclusive cohorts based on KS (i.e. KS = 0, 1, 2 or ≥3). The observation period spanned from index to the earliest among the end of data availability, death, end of insurance coverage, or 12 months. RESULTS: In total 6,194 patients (KS = 0: 2,488; KS = 1: 2,125; KS = 2: 1,074; KS ≥ 3: 507) were included. On average, patients were aged 68 years, 48-52% were female, and the Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ranged between 1.1 and 1.4. Over the observation period, all-cause total healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were $8,826 (KS = 0), $11,598 (KS = 1), $14,028 (KS = 2), and $16,211 (KS ≥ 3). Using the KS = 0 cohort as a reference, adjusted PPPM costs were $2,506, $4,775, and $6,452 higher in the KS = 1, KS = 2, and KS ≥ 3 cohorts, respectively. Hospitalization and outpatient costs were the main drivers of these differences. Similar results were found for VTE-related costs, which represented 4-11% of the total all-cause cost difference between KS cohorts. LIMITATIONS: Residual confounders; results may not be generalized to patients with other insurance plans or those who received treatments other than systemic therapy or radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis found that cancer patients at higher risk of VTE (based on KS) incurred significantly greater all-cause and VTE-related healthcare costs compared with cancer patients at lower risk of VTE.

Incidence of Major Atherothrombotic Vascular Events among Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease after Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) treated with lower extremity revascularization are at increased risk of major atherothrombotic vascular events (acute limb ischemia (ALI), major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV)-related death). This study assessed the incidence of major atherothrombotic vascular events, venous thromboembolism (VTE) events and rates of subsequent lower extremity revascularizations in the real-world among patients with PAD after revascularization. METHODS: Patients aged ≥50 years with PAD who underwent peripheral revascularization were identified from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims database (Q1/2014-Q2/2019). The first lower extremity revascularization after PAD diagnosis was defined as index date. Incidence rates of major atherothrombotic vascular events (i.e., composite of ALI, major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation, MI, ischemic stroke, and CV-related death) and VTE were assessed during follow-up as the number of events divided by patient-years of observation (censored at the first event). Rates of subsequent revascularizations and VTE were estimated overall and compared between patients with major atherothrombotic vascular events and those without. RESULTS: Of the 38,439 patients included, 6,675 (17.4%) had a major atherothrombotic vascular event during a median follow-up of 1.0 year. The composite major atherothrombotic vascular and VTE incidence rates were 13.81/100 patient years and 1.77/100 patient years, respectively, and 40.2% of patients experienced subsequent revascularizations. Patients with a post-revascularization major atherothrombotic vascular event had significantly higher rates of subsequent revascularizations (64.6% vs. 35.1%, standardized difference [SD] ≥10%) and VTE (4.6% vs. 2.1%, SD ≥10%) versus those without. CONCLUSION: One-in-six PAD patients aged ≥50 years who underwent peripheral revascularization experienced a major atherothrombotic vascular event within one year, and consequently, experienced higher rates of subsequent revascularizations compared with those without a major atherothrombotic vascular event post-revascularization. These findings highlight the need to improve strategies to prevent major atherothrombotic vascular events after revascularization.

Risk of Stroke Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Rivaroxaban and Warfarin.

OBJECTIVES: In a previous real-world study, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of stroke overall and severe stroke compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility in a different database of our previously observed results (Alberts M, et al. Stroke. 2020;51:549-555) on the risk of severe stroke among NVAF patients in a different population treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients from the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases (2011-2019) who initiated rivaroxaban or warfarin after a diagnosis of NVAF, had ≥6 months of continuous health plan enrollment, had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2, and had no history of stroke or anticoagulant use. Patient data were assessed until the earliest occurrence of a primary inpatient diagnosis of stroke, death, end of health plan enrollment, or end of study. Stroke severity was defined by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, imputed by random forest model. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to compare risk of stroke between cohorts, balanced by inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: The mean observation period from index date to either stroke, or end of eligibility or end of data was 28 months. Data from 13,599 rivaroxaban and 39,861 warfarin patients were included. Stroke occurred in 272 rivaroxaban-treated patients (0.97/100 person-years [PY]) and 1,303 warfarin-treated patients (1.32/100 PY). Rivaroxaban patients had lower risk for stroke overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) and for minor (NIHSS 1 to <5; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), moderate (NIHSS 5 to <16; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), and severe stroke (NIHSS 16 to 42; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study in a larger population of NVAF patients align with previous real-world findings and the ROCKET-AF trial by showing improved stroke prevention with rivaroxaban versus warfarin across all stroke severities.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs of major atherothrombotic vascular events among patients with peripheral artery disease after revascularization.

AIMS: Peripheral artery disease (PAD), often treated with lower extremity revascularization, is associated with risk of major atherothrombotic vascular events (acute limb ischemia [ALI], major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation, myocardial infarction [MI], ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death). This study aims to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs of such events among patients with PAD after revascularization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥50 years with PAD who were treated with lower-extremity revascularization were identified from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims database (01/2014-06/2019). The first lower extremity revascularization after PAD diagnosis was defined as the index date. Patients had ≥6 months of health plan enrollment before the index date. Patients were followed until the earliest of 1) end of enrollment or data; 2) diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism; or 3) oral anticoagulant use. All-cause healthcare resource use per-patient-year was compared before and after a major atherothrombotic vascular event post-revascularization among those with an event. Additionally, event-related healthcare costs per-patient-year were reported for each event type. RESULTS: Of the 38,439 PAD patients meeting the study criteria, 6,675 (17.4%) had a major atherothrombotic vascular event. On average, patients were observed for 7.3 months before an event and 6.2 months after an event. Patients with an event had significantly higher all-cause healthcare resource use versus similar metrics pre-event (e.g. inpatient visits among those with ALI: 3.5 ± 5.8 post-event vs. 2.0 ± 8.1 pre-event, p < .05). Event-related costs ranged from $57,825±$131,810 per-patient-year for ischemic stroke to $108,302±$150,168 for major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation. LIMITATIONS: Data do not contain clinical information. Additionally, results are limited to commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Patients with PAD who experience major atherothrombotic vascular events post-revascularization have considerably higher healthcare resource use and costs compared with similar metrics pre-event. Therefore, reducing the rate of such events could reduce overall healthcare costs for this population.

Healthcare costs before and after stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who initiated treatment with rivaroxaban or warfarin.

AIMS: Rivaroxaban reduces stroke compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study compared healthcare costs before and after stroke in NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using de-identified IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases, this retrospective cohort study (from 2011 to 2019) included patients with NVAF who initiated rivaroxaban or warfarin within 30 days after initial NVAF diagnosis. Patients who developed stroke were identified, and stroke severity was determined by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, imputed by a random forest method. Total all-cause per-patient per-year (PPPY) costs of care were determined for patients: (1) who developed stroke during the pre- and post-stroke periods and (2) who remained stroke-free during the follow-up period. Treatment groups were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: A total of 13,599 patients initiated rivaroxaban and 39,861 initiated warfarin, of which 272 (2.0%) and 1,303 (3.3%), respectively, developed stroke during a mean follow-up of 28 months. Among patients who developed stroke, PPPY costs increased from the pre-stroke to post-stroke period, with greater increases in the warfarin cohort relative to the rivaroxaban cohort. Overall, the costs increased by 1.78-fold for rivaroxaban vs 3.07-fold for warfarin; for less severe strokes (NIHSS < 5), costs increased 0.88-fold and 1.05-fold, respectively. Cost increases for more severe strokes (NIHSS ≥ 5) among rivaroxaban patients were half those for warfarin patients (3.19-fold vs 6.37-fold, respectively). Among patients without stroke, costs were similar during the follow-up period between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Total all-cause costs of care increased in the post-stroke period, and particularly in the patients treated with warfarin relative to those treated with rivaroxaban. The lower rate of stroke in the rivaroxaban cohort suggests that greater pre- to post-stroke cost increases result from more strokes occurring in the warfarin cohort.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese patients with acute venous thromboembolism: analysis of electronic health record data.

There is limited data evaluating clinical outcomes of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese VTE patients. We performed a cohort analysis using Optum® De-Identified Electronic Health Record data from 11/1/2012 to 9/30/2018. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 admitted to the hospital, emergency department or observation unit for VTE, prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin as their first oral anticoagulant (OAC) within 7-days and had ≥12-months of EHR activity prior were included. We excluded patients with OAC use at baseline or cancer. Patients were 1:1 matched (standard differences<0.10). Primary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding at 3-, 6- and 12-months using an intent-to-treat approach. Subanalyses of BMI 30.0-34.9, 35.0-39.9 and ≥ 40 kg/m2 were performed. Risk was compared using Cox regression and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We identified 6755 rivaroxaban and 6755 warfarin users with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and incident VTE. At 3-, 6- and 12-months, rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced hazard of recurrent VTE compared to warfarin (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.51-0.72; HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.55-0.77; HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.54-0.74) with no difference in major bleeding (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.68-1.44; HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.64-1.26; HR 1.00, 95%CI 0.73-1.36). No statistical difference was found across BMI categories for either recurrent VTE (p-interaction≥0.43) or major bleeding (p-interaction ≥ 0.58) at any time point. In obese VTE patients, prescription of rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly reduced risk of recurrent VTE versus warfarin, without impacting major bleeding. Our findings remained consistent across BMI classes.

Economic Implications of Preventing Major Cardiovascular and Limb Events with Rivaroxaban plus Aspirin in Patients with Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) have increased risks for cardiovascular (CV)-related morbidity and mortality. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) clinical trial of such patients, rivaroxaban plus aspirin demonstrated a significant reduction in major adverse CV events (MACE), a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and CV death, and major adverse limb events (MALE), a composite of chronic and acute limb ischemia, and major amputation resulting from vascular events, versus aspirin alone. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 1-year economic implications of preventing MACE and MALE with the use of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone among patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD in a US commercial health plan. METHOD: A cost-consequence model was developed to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from the COMPASS study (ie, the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs aspirin), Optum Integrated Database (ie, the prevalence of chronic CAD and/or PAD, incidence rates, and healthcare costs of MACE, MALE, and major bleeding), and the RED BOOK (ie, wholesale drug acquisition costs). The cost inputs were in 2019 US dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A 1-year treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin resulted in reductions of MACE and MALE, which balance the increased risk for bleeding versus aspirin alone and indicate a net health benefit for this drug regimen. These reductions were achieved at an incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of $0.16, mainly because of rivaroxaban's acquisition cost. In patients with ≥2 MACE or MALE risk factors, the incremental PMPM cost was $0.09, given the increased offset in rivaroxaban's acquisition cost by reduced rates of MACE or MALE. CONCLUSIONS: In an era of emerging thrombocardiology, treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin offers an effective thrombotic risk management strategy for healthcare stakeholders in the management of chronic CAD and/or PAD. The contribution of rivaroxaban would be greater in patients with ≥2 risk factors for MACE or MALE.

Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin for Management of Obese African Americans With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation or Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

African Americans (AAs) and obese individuals have increased thrombotic risk. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese, AAs with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). Optum® De-Identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) data was used to perform separate propensity-score matched analyses of adult, oral anticoagulant (OAC)-naïve AAs with NVAF or acute VTE, respectively; who had a body mass index≥30kg/m2 and ≥12-months EHR activity with ≥1-encounter before OAC initiation. Cox regression was performed and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the NVAF analysis, 1,969 rivaroxaban- and 1,969 warfarin-users were matched. Rivaroxaban was not associated with a difference in stroke/systemic embolism versus warfarin (HR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.60-1.28), but less major bleeding (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.94) was observed. Among 683 rivaroxaban-users with VTE, 1:1 matched to warfarin-users, rivaroxaban did not alter recurrent VTE (HR = 1.36, 95%CI = 0.79-2.34) or major bleeding (HR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.37-1.71) risk versus warfarin at 6-months (similar findings observed at 3- and 12-months). Rivaroxaban appeared to be associated with similar thrombotic, and similar or lower major bleeding risk versus warfarin in these obese, AA cohorts.

Healthcare costs of NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban and apixaban in the US.

OBJECTIVES: To provide the most current assessment of real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who newly initiated rivaroxaban and apixaban using a large US database. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective weighted cohort design was used with healthcare insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart databases (January 2012-December 2018). The index date was defined as the first dispensing of rivaroxaban or apixaban. Adult NVAF patients with an index date on or after 1 January 2016, ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility before the index date and ≥ 1 month after, and without prior use of oral anticoagulant were included. The observation period spanned from the index date to the earliest of the end of data availability, end of insurance coverage, or death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. All-cause healthcare resource utilization (HRU), including hospitalization, emergency room, and outpatient visits, and healthcare costs, including medical and pharmacy costs, were evaluated from the payer's perspective during the observation period up to 18 and 24 months, separately. RESULTS: In total, 23,822 rivaroxaban and 53,666 apixaban users were included. After weighting, all baseline characteristics were well balanced between cohorts (mean age: 73.8 years, female: 46.6% in both cohorts). Up to 18 months of follow-up, rivaroxaban users incurred significantly lower total healthcare costs compared to apixaban users (cost difference = -$1,121; p = 0.020), driven by significantly lower rates of outpatient hospital visits and associated costs (cost difference = -$1,579; p < 0.001). Similar results were found in the analysis conducted for up to 24 months of follow-up (total cost difference = ‒$1,111; p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective analysis, patients with NVAF initiated on rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower healthcare costs compared to those initiated on apixaban, which were primarily driven by significantly lower outpatient visits and costs during the 18- and 24-month follow-up periods.

Cancer associated thrombosis and mortality in patients with cancer stratified by khorana score risk levels.

BACKGROUND: The Khorana score (KS) clinical algorithm is used to predict VTE risk in cancer patients. The study objective was to evaluate VTE and survival rates among patients newly diagnosed with cancer and stratified by KS in a real-world population. METHODS: Data from the Optum® Clinformatics® DataMart database between 01/01/2012-09/30/2017 was used to identify adults with ≥ 1 hospitalization or ≥ 2 outpatient claims with a cancer diagnosis (index date). Only patients who were initiated on chemotherapy or radiation therapy were included. Patients were classified based on KS (KS = 0, 1, 2 or ≥ 3). Time-to-first VTE and survival were evaluated from the index date to the earliest among end of data availability or insurance coverage, death, or 12 months post-index using Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2,488 (KS = 0); 2,125 (KS = 1), 1,074 (KS = 2), and 507 (KS ≥ 3) cancer patients were included. The 12-month KM rates of VTE were 3.1%, 5.4%, 7.9%, and 14.9% (associated median time to VTE of 2.7, 3.0, 1.4, and 1.7 months) among KS = 0, 1, 2, and ≥ 3 cohorts, respectively. Corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) relative to the KS = 0 cohort were 1.72 (1.25-2.38), 2.46 (1.73-3.50), and 4.99 (3.40-7.31) for the KS = 1, 2, and ≥ 3 cohorts, respectively (all P < .001). Regardless of KS, patients with VTE had significantly lower survival rates than those without. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world claims-based cohort study of newly diagnosed cancer patients showed significantly higher rates of VTE with increased KS, confirming its predictive ability. Moreover, VTE was associated with lower survival rates within each KS cohort.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients: analysis of electronic health record data.

Background: Although rivaroxaban has demonstrated consistent drug levels in normal weight and obese patients, sufficient confirmation of equal clinical effectiveness and safety is currently lacking.Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) in obese nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients.Methods: Using Optum de-identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) data from November 2011 to September 2018,we evaluated NVAF patients with a body mass index (BMI)≥30 kg/m2 newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin (index date), with ≥12-months of EHR activity and ≥1 encounter before the index date. We excluded patients with valvular disease or evidence of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use at baseline. Patients who were prescribed rivaroxaban were 1:1 propensity-score matched to patients who were prescribed warfarin (standard differences <0.10 achieved for all covariates). Outcomes included SSE and major bleeding using an intent-to-treat approach. Subanalyses stratified by BMI (30.0-34.9, 35.0-39.9 and ≥40 kg/m2) were performed. Cox regression was performed and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: We included 35,613 rivaroxaban and 35,613 warfarin users with NVAF. Patients were followed for a median of 2.6 years (25%-75% range = 1.2-4.1). Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of SSE (HR = 0.83, 95%CI = 0.73-0.94) and major bleeding (HR = 0.82, 95%CI = 0.75-0.89) compared to warfarin. Subanalysis did not show a statistically significant interaction across BMI categories for SSE (p-interaction = .58) or major bleeding (p-interaction = .44) outcomes.Conclusions: Among obese NVAF patients, prescription of rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of SSE and major bleeding compared to warfarin, which remained consistent across BMI classes.

Comparison of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs between Rivaroxaban and Warfarin for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in a Skilled Nursing Facility Setting.

BACKGROUND: Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is increasing. Rivaroxaban is commonly used in this setting as an alternative to warfarin, based on comparable or increased efficacy in preventing stroke and a similar or lower risk of major bleeding. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between NVAF patients receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin in SNFs. METHODS: This retrospective study examined de-identified claims from Optum® Clinformatics® Extended Data Mart (1 January 2013-31 December 2017). Eligible patients had an AF diagnosis, were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin during an SNF stay, and had one or more such prescriptions filled in the 6 months preceding the stay. Patients were excluded if they received another oral anticoagulant or had evidence of valvular heart disease, mitral stenosis, or organ/tissue transplant. HCRU, mean number of events, and all-cause healthcare costs during the index SNF stay were reported. Results were also reported on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis. Exploratory analyses at different time periods were also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 4423 rivaroxaban patients and 22,796 warfarin patients were identified prior to inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. Index SNF stay was significantly shorter among rivaroxaban-treated patients (35.8 ± 35.8 days) versus warfarin (40.1 ± 46.3 days; p < 0.0001). During the SNF stay, overall HCRU was lower for the rivaroxaban cohort versus the warfarin cohort. All-cause total costs were significantly reduced for rivaroxaban ($6450 ± $10,379) versus warfarin ($7640 ± $16,556; p < 0.0001), and similar results were observed when calculated on a PPPM basis. During the 1-year post-index period, PPPM all-cause total costs were significantly lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin ($4135 vs. $4561; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this SNF setting, HCRU and costs were lower among patients with NVAF who were experienced users of rivaroxaban compared with those who were experienced users of warfarin. These findings may help inform clinical decision making to reduce the economic burden of NVAF among older adults in SNFs.

Assessing stroke severity using electronic health record data: a machine learning approach.

BACKGROUND: Stroke severity is an important predictor of patient outcomes and is commonly measured with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores. Because these scores are often recorded as free text in physician reports, structured real-world evidence databases seldom include the severity. The aim of this study was to use machine learning models to impute NIHSS scores for all patients with newly diagnosed stroke from multi-institution electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: NIHSS scores available in the Optum© de-identified Integrated Claims-Clinical dataset were extracted from physician notes by applying natural language processing (NLP) methods. The cohort analyzed in the study consists of the 7149 patients with an inpatient or emergency room diagnosis of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack and a corresponding NLP-extracted NIHSS score. A subset of these patients (n = 1033, 14%) were held out for independent validation of model performance and the remaining patients (n = 6116, 86%) were used for training the model. Several machine learning models were evaluated, and parameters optimized using cross-validation on the training set. The model with optimal performance, a random forest model, was ultimately evaluated on the holdout set. RESULTS: Leveraging machine learning we identified the main factors in electronic health record data for assessing stroke severity, including death within the same month as stroke occurrence, length of hospital stay following stroke occurrence, aphagia/dysphagia diagnosis, hemiplegia diagnosis, and whether a patient was discharged to home or self-care. Comparing the imputed NIHSS scores to the NLP-extracted NIHSS scores on the holdout data set yielded an R2 (coefficient of determination) of 0.57, an R (Pearson correlation coefficient) of 0.76, and a root-mean-squared error of 4.5. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models built on EHR data can be used to determine proxies for stroke severity. This enables severity to be incorporated in studies of stroke patient outcomes using administrative and EHR databases.

Risks of Stroke and Mortality in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated With Rivaroxaban and Warfarin.

Background and Purpose- Oral anticoagulation therapy is standard of care for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation to prevent stroke. This study compared rivaroxaban and warfarin for stroke and all-cause mortality risk reduction in a real-world setting. Methods- This retrospective cohort study (2011-2017) included de-identified patients from the Optum Clinformatics Database who started treatment with rivaroxaban or warfarin within 30 days following initial diagnosis of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Before nonvalvular atrial fibrillation diagnosis, patients had 6 months of continuous health plan enrollment and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Stroke severity was determined by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, imputed based on machine learning algorithms. Stroke and all-cause mortality risks were compared by treatment using Cox proportional hazard regression, with inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance cohorts for baseline risk factors. Stratified analysis by treatment duration was also performed. Results- During a mean follow-up of 27 months, 175 (1.33/100 patient-years [PY]) rivaroxaban-treated and 536 (1.66/100 PY) warfarin-treated patients developed stroke. The inverse probability of treatment weighting model showed that rivaroxaban reduced stroke risk by 19% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.91]). Analysis by stroke severity revealed risk reductions by rivaroxaban of 48% for severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 16-42; HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33-0.82]) and 19% for minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 1 to <5; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68-0.96]), but no difference for moderate stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 5 to <16; HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.78-1.10]). A total of 41 (0.31/100 PY) rivaroxaban-treated and 147 (0.44/100 PY) warfarin-treated patients died poststroke, 12 (0.09/100 PY) and 67 (0.20/100 PY) of whom died within 30 days, representing mortality risk reductions by rivaroxaban of 24% (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.61-0.95]) poststroke and 59% (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.28-0.60]) within 30 days. Conclusions- After the initial diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, patients treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin had significant risk reduction for stroke, especially severe stroke, and all-cause mortality after a stroke. Findings from this observational study may help inform anticoagulant choice for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with cancer.

Objective: Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing primary but also recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined healthcare utilization (HRU) and costs related to VTE recurrence among cancer patients.Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims from the Humana Database were used to compare HRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and hospitalization days) and healthcare costs among cancer patients with a single VTE event (between 01/2013 and 06/2015) and those with recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (from initiation of anticoagulant therapy until end of eligibility or data availability). All-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs were evaluated using Poisson regression, and healthcare costs were compared using mean differences reported as per-patient-per-year (PPPY).Results: Of 2,428 newly diagnosed cancer patients who developed VTE, 413 (17.1%) experienced recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (mean = 9 months). Patients with recurrent VTE had higher all-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs compared to those without recurrence. Patients with recurrent VTE also had over 3.19-times more VTE-related hospitalizations (RR [95% CI] = 3.19 [2.93-3.47]), and 3.88-times more VTE-related hospitalization days (RR [95% CI] = 3.88 [3.74-4.02]) than patients without a VTE recurrence. Total VTE-related healthcare costs were $39,641 PPPY among patients with recurrent VTE, $29,142 higher compared to those without recurrence ($10,499 PPPY). This difference was mainly driven by hospitalization costs.Conclusion: Recurrent VTE among cancer patients is associated with significant HRU and healthcare costs, notably hospitalizations. Strategies to reduce VTE recurrence in patients with cancer can contribute to reducing healthcare cost.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin in skilled nursing facilities: a retrospective cohort study.

Objective: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is present in up to 17% of patients in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between AF patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin in SNFs.Methods: Using de-identified claims from Optum Clinformatics Extended Data Mart (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2017), this retrospective cohort study indexed AF patients with first SNF admission during which rivaroxaban or warfarin was initiated within 3 days of admission. To adjust for selection bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression and generalized linear models were used to compare HRU and costs.Results: 519 rivaroxaban and 1129 warfarin patients met inclusion criteria. After IPTW, the cohorts were well balanced for baseline characteristics. The average length of index SNF stay was 32.07 and 37.44 days for rivaroxaban and warfarin patients, respectively. During SNF stay, rivaroxaban patients had 27% lower odds of hospitalization (p < .0001), 2.7 fewer international normalized ratio (INR) tests per-patient-per-month (PPPM; p < .001), and 2.3 fewer pathology/laboratory encounters PPPM (p < .0001) than warfarin patients. All-cause healthcare costs were $2638 lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (p < .0001) during the index SNF stay, with lower medical costs (p < .0001) but higher pharmacy costs (p < .0001). Total all-cause healthcare costs 100 days post-index SNF were $8746 lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (p < .0001).Conclusions: In the SNF setting, AF patients treated with rivaroxaban had 5-day shorter length of stay, lower HRU, and lower all-cause total and medical costs compared to warfarin, despite higher treatment costs. These findings may help inform clinical decision-making to reduce economic burden.