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).

Rhythm Control Vs Rate Control in a Contemporary Ambulatory Atrial Fibrillation Cohort: Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT-AF Trial.

Background: We examined the characteristics and outcomes in a contemporary ambulatory population of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), comparing rate control with rhythm control. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized trial (Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation [IMPACT-AF]) in ambulatory AF patients from 2016 to 2018, which compared use of a clinical decision support tool for general practitioners to usual care. This analysis compared patients managed with rate vs rhythm control, at entry into the study. Outcomes included AF-related emergency department (ED) visits, unplanned cardiovascular hospitalizations, and bleeding events at 12 months. Results: A total of 870 patients were included in this analysis, 99 (11.4%) in the rhythm-control group, and 40% women. In the rhythm-control group, the mean age was younger (70 ± 11.4 vs 72.7 ± 9.5 years, P = 0.03), a higher number were paroxysmal (80% vs 43%, P < 0.001), and CHADS2 scores were lower. The rate of AF-related ED visits was higher in the rhythm-control group (17.2 vs 7.3%, P = 0.003), and repeat visits (rate ratio 3.03, 95% confidence interval [1.99-4.52], P < 0.001). The number of repeat ED visits was independently associated with female sex and being in the rhythm-control group. Conclusions: Both rate- and rhythm-control patients have recurrent ED visits, with a higher rate in patients treated with rhythm control. These findings are observational, but taken in the context of current guidelines could help develop further therapies aimed at improving symptom burden in both rhythm- and rate-control patients to broadly improve healthcare utilization in the AF population.

Contexte: Nous avons examiné les caractéristiques et le devenir de patients ambulatoires contemporains atteints de fibrillation auriculaire (FA) dans le cadre d'une comparaison entre la maîtrise de la fréquence cardiaque et la maîtrise du rythme cardiaque. Méthodologie: Nous avons effectué une analyse a posteriori d'un essai à répartition aléatoire par grappes ( I ntegrated M anagement P rogram A dvancing C ommunity T reatment of A trial F ibrillation [IMPACT-AF]) mené de 2016 à 2018 chez des patients ambulatoires atteints de FA en vue de comparer un outil d'aide à la décision clinique destiné aux omnipraticiens avec les soins habituels. Notre analyse a permis d'établir une comparaison entre les patients pris en charge par une maîtrise de la fréquence cardiaque et ceux pris en charge par une maîtrise du rythme cardiaque lors de leur inscription à l'essai. Les paramètres d'évaluation comprenaient les consultations aux urgences liées à la FA, les hospitalisations imprévues ayant des causes cardiovasculaires et les épisodes hémorragiques à 12 mois. Résultats: Au total, 870 patients ont été inclus dans cette analyse; 99 (11,4 %) faisaient partie du groupe pris en charge par une maîtrise du rythme cardiaque, et 40 % étaient de femmes. Dans le groupe pris en charge par une maîtrise du rythme cardiaque, l'âge moyen était moindre (70 ± 11,4 ans vs 72,7 ± 9,5 ans, P = 0,03), un plus grand nombre de patients présentaient une FA paroxystique (80 % vs 43 %, P < 0,001) et les scores CHADS2 étaient moins élevés. Le taux de consultations aux urgences liées à la FA était plus élevé dans le groupe pris en charge par une maîtrise du rythme cardiaque (17,2 vs 7,3 %, P = 0,003) tout comme le taux de consultations répétées aux urgences (rapport des taux de 3,03, intervalle de confiance à 95 % de 1,99 à 4,52, P < 0,001). Le nombre de consultations répétées aux urgences était indépendamment associé au sexe féminin et à l'inclusion dans le groupe pris en charge par une maîtrise du rythme cardiaque. Conclusions: Des consultations répétées aux urgences ont été notées tant chez les patients pris en charge par une maîtrise de la fréquence cardiaque que chez ceux pris en charge par une maîtrise du rythme cardiaque quoique plus fréquemment chez ces derniers. Nos constats sont de type observationnel. Néanmoins, dans le contexte des lignes directrices actuelles, ils pourraient contribuer à la mise au point d'autres traitements visant à atténuer le fardeau des symptômes tant chez les patients pris en charge par une maîtrise du rythme cardiaque que chez ceux pris en charge par une maîtrise de la fréquence cardiaque et ainsi permettre globalement une meilleure utilisation des soins de santé chez les patients atteints de FA.

Lessons learned from Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): a pragmatic clinical trial of computerized decision support in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF) was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool in primary care, Nova Scotia, Canada. We evaluated if CDS software versus Usual Care could help primary care providers (PCPs) deliver individualized guideline-based AF patient care. METHODS: Key study challenges including CDS development and implementation, recruitment, and data integration documented over the trial duration are presented as lessons learned. RESULTS: Adequate resources must be allocated for software development, updates and feasibility testing. Development took longer than projected. End-user feedback suggested network access and broadband speeds impeded uptake; they felt further that the CDS was not sufficiently user-friendly or efficient in supporting AF care (i.e., repetitive alerts). Integration across e-platforms is crucial. Intellectual property and other issues prohibited CDS integration within electronic medical records and provincial e-health platforms. Double login and data entry were impediments to participation or reasons for provider withdrawal. Data integration challenges prevented easy and timely data access, analysis, and reporting. Primary care study recruitment is resource intensive. Altogether, 203 PCPs and 1145 of their patients participated, representing 25% of eligible providers and 12% of AF patients in Nova Scotia, respectively. The most effective provider recruitment strategy was in-office, small group lunch-and-learns. PCPs with past research experience or who led patient consent were top recruiters. The study office played a pivotal role in achieving patient recruitment targets. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid growth in healthcare data is leading to widespread development of CDS. Our experience found practical issues to address for such applications to succeed. Feasibility testing to assess the utility of any healthcare CDS prior to implementation is recommended. Adequate resources are necessary to support successful recruitment for future pragmatic trials. CDS tools that integrate multiple co-morbid guidelines across eHealth platforms should be pursued. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01927367. Registered on August 22, 2013.

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.

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.

Optimizing primary care management of atrial fibrillation: The rationale and methods of the Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF) study.

The Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF) is an investigator designed, prospective, randomized, un-blinded, cluster design clinical trial, conducted in the primary care setting of Nova Scotia, Canada. Its aim is to evaluate whether an electronic Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) designed to assist both practitioners and patients with evidence-based management strategies for Atrial Fibrillation (AF) can improve process of care and outcomes in a cost-efficient manner as compared to usual AF care. At least 200 primary care providers are being recruited and randomized at the level of the practice to control (usual care) or intervention (eligible to access to CDSS) cohorts. Over 1,000 patients of participating providers with confirmed AF will be managed per their provider's respective assignment. The targeted primary clinical outcome is a reduction in the composite of unplanned cardiovascular (CV) or major bleeding hospitalizations and AF-related emergency department visits. Secondary clinical outcomes, process of care, patient and provider satisfaction as well as economic costs at the system and patient levels are being examined. The trial is anticipated to report in 2018.

Sputum colour and bacteria in chronic bronchitis exacerbations: a pooled analysis.

We examined the correlation between sputum colour and the presence of potentially pathogenic bacteria in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECBs). Data were pooled from six multicentre studies comparing moxifloxacin with other antimicrobials in patients with an AECB. Sputum was collected before antimicrobial therapy, and bacteria were identified by culture and Gram staining. Association between sputum colour and bacteria was determined using logistic regression. Of 4,089 sputum samples, a colour was reported in 4,003; 1,898 (46.4%) were culture-positive. Green or yellow sputum samples were most likely to yield bacteria (58.9% and 45.5% of samples, respectively), compared with 18% of clear and 39% of rust-coloured samples positive for potentially pathogenic microorganisms. Factors predicting a positive culture were sputum colour (the strongest predictor), sputum purulence, increased dyspnoea, male sex and absence of fever. Green or yellow versus white sputum colour was associated with a sensitivity of 94.7% and a specificity of 15% for the presence of bacteria. Sputum colour, particularly green and yellow, was a stronger predictor of potentially pathogenic bacteria than sputum purulence and increased dyspnoea in AECB patients. However, it does not necessarily predict the need for antibiotic treatment in all patients with AECB.

Community-Acquired Pneumonia Recovery in the Elderly (CAPRIE): efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin therapy versus that of levofloxacin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Limited prospective data are available for elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin versus that of levofloxacin for the treatment of CAP in hospitalized elderly patients (age, > or = 65 years). METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients were stratified by CAP severity before randomization to receive treatment with either intravenous/oral moxifloxacin (400 mg daily) or intravenous/oral levofloxacin (500 mg daily) for 7-14 days. Clinical response at test-of-cure (the primary efficacy end point was between days 5 and 21 after completion of therapy), and clinical response during therapy (between days 3 and 5 after the start of therapy) and bacteriologic response were secondary end points. RESULTS: The safety population included 394 patients (195 in the moxifloxacin group and 199 in the levofloxacin group). The population eligible for clinical efficacy analysis (i.e., the clinically valid population) included 281 patients (141 in the moxifloxacin group and 140 in the levofloxacin group); 51.3% were male, and the mean age (+/-SD) was 77.4 +/- 7.7 years. Cure rates at test-of-cure for the clinically valid population were 92.9% in the moxifloxacin arm and 87.9% in the levofloxacin arm (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to 11.9; P = .2). Clinical recovery by days 3-5 after the start of treatment was 97.9% in the moxifloxacin arm vs. 90.0% in the levofloxacin arm (95% CI, 1.7-14.1; P = .01). In the moxifloxacin group, cure rates were 92.6% for patients with mild or moderate CAP and 94.7% for patients with severe CAP, compared with cure rates of 88.6% and 84.6%, respectively, in the levofloxacin group (P = not significant). Cure rates in the moxifloxacin arm were 90.0% for patients aged 65-74 years and 94.5% for patients aged > or = 75 years, compared with 85.0% and 90.0%, respectively, in the levofloxacin arm (P = not significant). There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous/oral moxifloxacin therapy was efficacious and safe for hospitalized elderly patients with CAP, achieving > 90% cure in all severity and age subgroups, and was associated with faster clinical recovery than intravenous/oral levofloxacin therapy, with a comparable safety profile.

Retrospective analysis of the safety profile of oral moxifloxacin in elderly patients enrolled in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: As aging is associated with physiological changes, including renal and hepatic insufficiency, and a higher risk of drug interactions, special attention needs to be directed towards the safety of medications in the elderly. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the safety of oral moxifloxacin in elderly patients who were enrolled in clinical trials and to compare these results to those of other commonly used antibacterials. METHODS: Safety data from 27 prospective, randomised, comparative phase II/III trials of oral moxifloxacin included in the Bayer clinical trial database were pooled and analysed by age group (<65 years of age, 65-74 years of age, > or = 75 years of age) and by treatment group (moxifloxacin vs comparator). The primary endpoints included rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (all adverse events regardless of causality), drug-related adverse events, drug-related serious adverse events, deaths and premature discontinuations because of a treatment-emergent adverse event. A treatment by age group interaction test was used to determine if the comparison between moxifloxacin and the comparator group in the incidence rates of any treatment-emergent or drug-related adverse events were affected by increasing age. RESULTS: Of the 12 231 patients who had valid safety data, 6270 had been treated with oral moxifloxacin and 5961 with a comparator antibacterial. The most frequently used comparators were cefuroxime and clarithromycin. Most patients (n = 9671) were <65 years of age (4939 moxifloxacin, 4732 comparator); 1636 patients were 65-74 years of age (842 moxifloxacin, 794 comparator); and 924 patients were > or = 75 years of age (489 moxifloxacin, 435 comparator). The treatment by age group interaction test revealed that the comparison of drug-related adverse event rates between the moxifloxacin and comparator group were not affected by increasing age (p = 0.43). Rates of premature termination between the moxifloxacin and comparator treatment groups also did not increase with age (p = 0.552). No arrhythmias related to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation were reported following oral moxifloxacin or comparator treatment in this large group of young and elderly patients. Overall, the number of deaths was similar between the treatment groups (17 moxifloxacin, 19 comparator). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-related adverse event rates associated with oral moxifloxacin or the comparator therapy used in these studies did not significantly increase with advancing age. This pooled analysis suggests that oral moxifloxacin can be safely used in elderly patients with characteristics consistent with those enrolled into the clinical trials.