Higher OAK (Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge) score at baseline associated with better TTR (Time in Therapeutic Range) in patients taking warfarin.

A lack in patient knowledge of warfarin therapy is associated with poor adherence. This knowledge gap may result in a lower INR Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR). To investigate association between patient anticoagulation knowledge and warfarin control. Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) is a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan sponsored consortium of six anticoagulation management services. Patients prescribed warfarin at two MAQI2 sites completed a voluntary Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge (OAK) questionnaire at warfarin initiation and 6-month follow-up. The results of 20 OAK questions and TTRs (excluding 1st month post-initiation) were compared using chi-square tests, t-tests and multivariate analysis adjusting for SAMe-TT2R2 and days on warfarin. Of 1836 surveys distributed at warfarin initiation, 481 (26.2%) patients completed the baseline questionnaire (within 1 month post-initiation): mean OAK score: 14.6 ± 3.4. Of those, 147 (30.6%) completed 6-month follow-up surveys (OAK: 12.7 ± 5.8). Patients with TTR ≥ 70% at baseline scored higher on OAK tests than patients with TTR < 70% in unadjusted analyses (15.1 ± 3.2 v. 14.2 ± 3.5, p = 0.003) and adjusted analysis (p = 0.020). There was no unadjusted or adjusted difference in OAK scores at 6-month follow-up between patients with TTR ≥ 70% and TTR < 70%. For patients who completed baseline and follow-up surveys, there was a decrease of 2.4 points in OAK score between baseline and 6-month follow up (p < 0.001). Higher baseline, but not follow-up, OAK score is associated with better warfarin control and average OAK scores decreased between baseline and follow-up. Further studies are needed to determine what type of patient education may improve patient knowledge retention and warfarin control.

Anticoagulation Changes Following Major and Clinically Relevant Nonmajor Bleeding Events in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

Background: Bleeding events are common complications of oral anticoagulant drugs, including both warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Some patients have their anticoagulant changed or discontinued after experiencing a bleeding event, while others continue the same treatment. Differences in anticoagulation management between warfarin- and DOAC-treated patients following a bleeding event are unknown. Methods: Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation from six anticoagulation clinics taking warfarin or DOAC therapy who experienced an International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)-defined major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding event were identified between 2016 and 2020. The primary outcome was management of the anticoagulant following bleeding (discontinuation, change in drug class, and restarting of same drug class). DOAC- and warfarin-treated patients were propensity matched based on the individual elements of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores as well as the severity of the bleeding event. Results: Of the 509 patients on warfarin therapy and 246 on DOAC therapy who experienced a major or CRNM bleeding event, the majority of patients continued anticoagulation therapy. The majority of warfarin (231, 62.6%) and DOAC patients (201, 81.7%) restarted their previous anticoagulation. Conclusion: Following a bleeding event, most patients restarted anticoagulation therapy, most often with the same type of anticoagulant that they previously had been taking.

Length of Anticoagulation in Provoked Venous Thromboembolism: A Multicenter Study of How Real-World Practice Mirrors Guideline Recommendations.

Background For more than a decade, guidelines have recommended a limited 3 months of anticoagulation for the treatment of provoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). How closely real-world practice follows guideline recommendations is not well described. Methods and Results In our multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we evaluated trends in anticoagulation duration for patients enrolled in the MAQI2 (Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative) registry who were receiving anticoagulation for a provoked VTE. The MAQI2 registry comprises 6 centers in Michigan that manage patients' long-term anticoagulation. We identified 474 patients on warfarin and 302 patients on direct oral anticoagulants who were receiving anticoagulation for a primary indication of provoked VTE between 2008 and 2020. Using a predefined threshold of 120 days (3 months plus a buffer period), predictors of extended anticoagulant use were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Most patients received >120 days of anticoagulation, regardless of which medication was used. The median (25th-75th percentile) length of treatment for patients taking warfarin was 142 (91-234) days and for direct oral anticoagulants was 180 (101-360) days. Recurrent VTE (odds ratio [OR], 2.75 [95% CI, 1.67-4.53]), history of myocardial infarction (OR, 3.92 [95% CI, 1.32-11.7]), and direct oral anticoagulant rather than warfarin use (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.59-3.08]) were independently associated with prolonged anticoagulation. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with provoked VTE, most patients received anticoagulation for longer than the guideline-recommended 3 months. This demonstrates a potential opportunity to improve care delivery and reduce anticoagulant-associated bleeding risk.

Assessment of an Intervention to Reduce Aspirin Prescribing for Patients Receiving Warfarin for Anticoagulation.

Importance: For some patients receiving warfarin, adding aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) increases bleeding risk with unclear treatment benefit. Reducing excess aspirin use could be associated with improved clinical outcomes. Objective: To assess changes in aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombosis event rates among patients treated with warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pre-post observational quality improvement study was conducted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, at a 6-center quality improvement collaborative in Michigan among 6738 adults taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without an apparent indication for concomitant aspirin. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 26, 2020, to June 14, 2021. Intervention: Primary care professionals for patients taking aspirin were asked whether an ongoing combination aspirin and warfarin treatment was indicated. If not, then aspirin was discontinued with the approval of the managing clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were assessed before and after intervention for the primary analysis and before and after 24 months before the intervention (when rates of aspirin use first began to decrease) for the secondary analysis. Outcomes included the rate of aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombotic outcomes. An interrupted time series analysis assessed cumulative monthly event rates over time. Results: A total of 6738 patients treated with warfarin (3160 men [46.9%]; mean [SD] age, 62.8 [16.2] years) were followed up for a median of 6.7 months (IQR, 3.2-19.3 months). Aspirin use decreased slightly from a baseline mean use of 29.4% (95% CI, 28.9%-29.9%) to 27.1% (95% CI, 26.1%-28.0%) during the 24 months before the intervention (P < .001 for slope before and after 24 months before the intervention) with an accelerated decrease after the intervention (mean aspirin use, 15.7%; 95% CI, 14.8%-16.8%; P = .001 for slope before and after intervention). In the primary analysis, the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in major bleeding events per month (preintervention, 0.31%; 95% CI, 0.27%-0.34%; postintervention, 0.21%; 95% CI, 0.14%-0.28%; P = .03 for difference in slope before and after intervention). No change was observed in mean percentage of patients having a thrombotic event from before to after the intervention (0.21% vs 0.24%; P = .34 for difference in slope). In the secondary analysis, reducing aspirin use (starting 24 months before the intervention) was associated with decreases in mean percentage of patients having any bleeding event (2.3% vs 1.5%; P = .02 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), mean percentage of patients having a major bleeding event (0.31% vs 0.25%; P = .001 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), and mean percentage of patients with an emergency department visit for bleeding (0.99% vs 0.67%; P = .04 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), with no change in mean percentage of patients with a thrombotic event (0.20% vs 0.23%; P = .36 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement intervention was associated with an acceleration of a preexisting decrease in aspirin use among patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without a clear indication for aspirin therapy. Reductions in aspirin use were associated with reduced bleeding. This study suggests that an anticoagulation clinic-based aspirin deimplementation intervention can improve guideline-concordant aspirin use.

Outcomes in patients undergoing periprocedural interruption of warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Differences in clinical outcomes following a temporary interruption of warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for a surgical procedure are not well described. Differences in patient characteristics from practice-based cohorts have not typically been accounted for in prior analyses. AIM: To describe risk-adjusted differences in postoperative outcomes following an interruption of warfarin vs DOACs. METHODS: Patients receiving care at six anticoagulation clinics participating in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative were included if they had at least one oral anticoagulant interruption for a procedure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline differences between the warfarin cohort and DOAC cohort. Bleeding and thromboembolic events within 30 days following the procedure were compared between the IPTW cohorts using the Poisson distribution test. RESULTS: A total of 525 DOAC patients were matched with 1323 warfarin patients, of which 923 were nonbridged warfarin patients and 400 were bridged warfarin patients. The occurrence of postoperative minor bleeding (10.8% vs. 4.7%, p < .001), major bleeding (2.9% vs. 1.1%, p = .01) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) (6.5% vs. 3.0%, p = .002) was greater in the DOAC cohort compared with the nonbridged warfarin cohort. The rates of postoperative bleeding outcomes were similar between the DOAC and the bridged warfarin cohorts. CONCLUSION: Perioperative interruption of DOACs, compared with warfarin without bridging, is associated with a higher incidence of 30-day minor bleeds, major bleeds, and CRNMBs. Further research investigating the perioperative outcomes of these two classes of anticoagulants is warranted.

Management strategies following slightly out-of-range INRs: watchful waiting vs dose changes.

Patients' international normalized ratios (INRs) often fall slightly out of range. In these cases, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines suggest maintaining the current warfarin dose and retesting the INR within the following 2 weeks (watchful waiting). We sought to determine whether watchful waiting or dose changes for slightly out-of-range INRs is more effective in obtaining in-range INRs at follow-up. INRs and management strategies of warfarin-treated patients within the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative registry were analyzed. Management strategies included watchful waiting or dose changes. INRs slightly out of range (target range 2.0-3.0) and their associated management were identified. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of the next INR being in range, adjusted for clustering due to multiple out-of-range INRs per patient. A total of 45 351 slightly out-of-range INRs (ranging 1.50-1.99 and 3.01-3.49) from 8288 patients were identified. The next INR was slightly less likely to be in range with watchful waiting than with a dose change (predicted probabilities 58.9% vs 60.0%, P = 0.024). Although a significant statistical difference was detected in the probabilities of the next INR being back in range when managed by a dose change compared with watchful waiting following a slightly out-of-range INR, the magnitude of the difference was small and unlikely to represent clinical importance. Our study supports the current guideline recommendations for watchful waiting in cases of slightly out-of-range INRs values.

Standard Versus Higher Intensity Anticoagulation for Patients With Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement and Additional Risk Factors for Thromboembolism.

Current guidelines recommend targeting an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.5 to 3.5 for patients with mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and additional risk factors for thromboembolic events. Available literature supporting the higher intensity (INR) goal is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the association of standard and higher intensity anticoagulation on outcomes in this patient population. The Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative database was used to identify patients with mechanical AVR and at least one additional risk factor. Patients were classified into 2 groups based on INR goal: standard-intensity (INR goal 2.5) or higher-intensity (INR goal 3.0). Cox-proportional hazard model was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios. One hundred and forty-six patients were identified of whom 110 (75.3%) received standard-intensity anticoagulation and 36 (24.7%) received higher intensity anticoagulation. Standard-intensity patients were older and more likely to be on aspirin. Atrial fibrillation was the most common additional risk factor for inclusion. The primary outcome of thromboembolic events, bleeding, or all-cause death was 13.9 and 19.5/100-person-years in the standard-intensity and higher intensity groups, respectively (adjusted HR 2.58, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 5.18). Higher-intensity anticoagulation was significantly associated with any bleeding (adjusted HR 2.52, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 5.00) and there were few thromboembolic events across both groups (5 events total). These results challenge current guideline recommendations for anticoagulation management of mechanical AVR in patients with additional risk factors.

Adverse Events Associated With the Addition of Aspirin to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy Without a Clear Indication.

Importance: It is unclear how many patients treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are using concomitant acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, or aspirin) and how this affects clinical outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of prescription of concomitant ASA and DOAC therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based cohort study took place at 4 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan from January 2015 to December 2019. Eligible participants were adults undergoing treatment with a DOAC for AF or VTE, without a recent myocardial infarction (MI) or history of heart valve replacement, with at least 3 months of follow-up. Exposures: Use of ASA concomitant with DOAC therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of bleeding (any, nonmajor, major), rates of thrombosis (stroke, VTE, MI), emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death. Results: Of the study cohort of 3280 patients (1673 [51.0%] men; mean [SD] age 68.2 [13.3] years), 1107 (33.8%) patients without a clear indication for ASA were being treated with DOACs and ASA. Two propensity score-matched cohorts, each with 1047 patients, were analyzed (DOAC plus ASA and DOAC only). Patients were followed up for a mean (SD) of 20.9 (19.0) months. Patients taking DOAC and ASA experienced more bleeding events compared with DOAC monotherapy (26.0 bleeds vs 31.6 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .01). Specifically, patients undergoing combination therapy had significantly higher rates of nonmajor bleeding (26.1 bleeds vs 21.7 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .02) compared with DOAC monotherapy. Major bleeding rates were similar between the 2 cohorts. Thrombotic event rates were also similar between the cohorts (2.5 events vs 2.3 events per 100 patient years for patients treated with DOAC and ASA compared with DOAC monotherapy, P = .80). Patients were more often hospitalized while undergoing combination therapy (9.1 vs 6.5 admissions per 100 patient years, P = .02). Conclusion and Relevance: Nearly one-third of patients with AF and/or VTE who were treated with a DOAC received ASA without a clear indication. Compared with DOAC monotherapy, concurrent DOAC and ASA use was associated with increased bleeding and hospitalizations but similar observed thrombosis rate. Future research should identify and deprescribe ASA for patients when the risk exceeds the anticipated benefit.

Comparison of temporary interruption with continuation of direct oral anticoagulants for low bleeding risk procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data is available on the rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events for patients undergoing low bleeding risk procedures while taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). METHODS: Adults taking DOAC in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) database who underwent a low bleeding risk procedure between May 2015 and Sep 2019 were included. Thirty-day bleeding (of any severity), thromboembolic events, and death were compared between DOAC temporarily interrupted and continued uninterrupted groups. Adverse event rates were compared using an inverse probability weighting propensity score. RESULTS: There were 820 patients who underwent 1412 low risk procedures. DOAC therapy was temporarily interrupted in 371 (45.2%) patients (601 [42.6%] procedures) and continued uninterrupted in 449 (54.8%) patients (811 [57.4%] procedures). DOAC patients with temporary interruptions were more likely to have diabetes, prior stroke or TIA, prior bleeding, higher CHA2DS2-VASc, and higher modified HAS-BLED scores. DOAC interruption was common for gastrointestinal endoscopy, electrophysiology device implantation, and cardiac catheterization while it was less common for cardioversion, dermatologic procedures, and subcutaneous injection. After propensity score adjustment, bleeding risk was lower in the DOAC temporary interruption group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) as compared to the group with continuous DOAC use. Rates of thromboembolic events and death did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: DOAC-treated patients undergoing low bleeding risk procedures may experience lower rates of bleeding when DOAC is temporarily interrupted. Prospective studies focused on low bleeding risk procedures are needed to identify the safety DOAC management strategy.

Periprocedural bridging anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism: A registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of bridging anticoagulation increases a patient's bleeding risk without clear evidence of thrombotic prevention among warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. Contemporary use of bridging anticoagulation among warfarin-treated patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) has not been studied. METHODS: We identified warfarin-treated patients with VTE who temporarily stopped warfarin for a surgical procedure between 2010 and 2018 at six health systems. Using the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians guideline, we assessed use of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation based on recurrent VTE risk. Recurrent VTE risk and 30-day outcomes (bleeding, thromboembolism, emergency department visit) were each assessed using logistic regression adjusted for multiple procedures per patient. RESULTS: During the study period, 789 warfarin-treated patients with VTE underwent 1529 procedures (median, 2; interquartile range, 1-4). Unadjusted use of bridging anticoagulation was more common in patients at high risk for VTE recurrence (99/171, 57.9%) than for patients at moderate (515/1078, 47.8%) or low risk of recurrence (134/280, 47.86%). Bridging anticoagulation use was higher in high-risk patients compared with low- or moderate-risk patients in both unadjusted (P = .013) and patient-level cluster-adjusted analyses (P = .031). Adherence to American College of Chest Physicians guidelines in high- and low-risk patients did not change during the study period (odds ratio, 0.98 per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.05). Adverse events were rare and not statistically different between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging anticoagulation was commonly overused among low-risk patients and underused among high-risk patients treated with warfarin for VTE. Adverse events were rare and not different between the two treatment groups.

Association of Adding Aspirin to Warfarin Therapy Without an Apparent Indication With Bleeding and Other Adverse Events.

Importance: It is not clear how often patients receive aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) while receiving oral anticoagulation with warfarin sodium without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin, such as a mechanical heart valve replacement, recent percutaneous coronary intervention, or acute coronary syndrome. The clinical outcomes of such patients treated with warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with warfarin monotherapy are not well defined to date. Objective: To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of adding aspirin to warfarin for patients without a clear therapeutic indication for combination therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A registry-based cohort study of adults enrolled at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017) who were receiving warfarin therapy for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism without documentation of a recent myocardial infarction or history of valve replacement. Exposure: Aspirin use without therapeutic indication. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of any bleeding, major bleeding events, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and thrombotic events at 1, 2, and 3 years. Results: Of the study cohort of 6539 patients (3326 men [50.9%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [15.5] years), 2453 patients (37.5%) without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin were receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy. Data from 2 propensity score-matched cohorts of 1844 patients were analyzed (warfarin and aspirin vs warfarin only). At 1 year, patients receiving combination warfarin and aspirin compared with those receiving warfarin only had higher rates of overall bleeding (cumulative incidence, 26.0%; 95% CI, 23.8%-28.3% vs 20.3%; 95% CI, 18.3%-22.3%; P < .001), major bleeding (5.7%; 95% CI, 4.6%-7.1% vs 3.3%; 95% CI, 2.4%-4.3%; P < .001), emergency department visits for bleeding (13.3%; 95% CI, 11.6%-15.1% vs 9.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-11.4%; P = .001), and hospitalizations for bleeding (8.1%; 6.8%-9.6% vs 5.2%; 4.1%-6.4%; P = .001). Rates of thrombosis were similar, with a 1-year cumulative incidence of 2.3% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.1%) for those receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.6%) for those receiving warfarin alone (P = .40). Similar findings persisted during 3 years of follow-up as well as in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with warfarin monotherapy, receipt of combination warfarin and aspirin therapy was associated with increased bleeding and similar observed rates of thrombosis. Further research is needed to better stratify which patients may benefit from aspirin while anticoagulated with warfarin for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism; clinicians should be judicious in selecting patients for combination therapy.

Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation: Measuring the Impact of a Clinical Trial on Care Delivery.

Use of bridging anticoagulation has been shown to be harmful and without benefit in warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed a quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis between 2010 and 2017 in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) collaborative before and after the BRIDGE trial publication (July 2015). Predicted use of bridging at the end of the study period was calculated with and without the effect of the BRIDGE trial after adjustment for patient-level clustering. Predictors of bridging anticoagulation use in the post-BRIDGE trial period were analyzed. In adjusted analyses, the use of bridging anticoagulation declined from a predicted 27.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.5%-35.1%) to 13.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-18.2%) at the end of 2017 (P = .001) in response to the BRIDGE trial. Use of bridging anticoagulation declined similarly among atrial fibrillation patients at low risk for stroke (29.0% to 14.4%) and intermediate or high risk for stroke (38.0%-20.3%). Younger age and a prior history of stroke were independent predictors of bridging anticoagulation use following the BRIDGE trial publication. The BRIDGE trial publication is associated with a rapid and significant decline in the use of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation.

Warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes of the "Real-World" Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) registry to the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trials.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining warfarin use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) may not accurately reflect real-world populations. We aimed to determine the representativeness of the RCT populations to real-world patients and to describe differences in the characteristics of trial populations from trial eligible patients in a real-world setting. We hypothesized that a significant fraction of real-world patients would not qualify for the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trials and that real-world patients qualifying for the studies may have more strokes and bleeding events. We compared the inclusion and exclusion criteria, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes from RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE against data from the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2), a regional network of six community- and academic-based anticoagulation clinics. Of the 1446 non-valvular AF patients in the MAQI2 registry taking warfarin, approximately 40-60% would meet the selection criteria used in RE-LY (788, 54.5%), ROCKET-AF (566, 39.1%), and ARISTOTLE (866, 59.9%). The most common reasons for exclusion from one or more trial were anemia (15.1%), other concurrent medications (11.2%), and chronic kidney disease (9.4%). Trial-eligible MAQI2 patients were older, more frequently female, with a higher rate of paroxysmal AF, and lower rates of congestive heart failure, previous stroke, and previous myocardial infarction than the trial populations. MAQI2 patients eligible for each trial had a lower rate of stroke and similar rate of major bleeding than was observed in the trials. A sizable proportion of real-world AF patients managed in anticoagulation clinics would not have been eligible for the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISOTLE trials. The expected stroke risk reduction and bleeding risk among real-world AF patients on warfarin may not be congruent with published clinical trial data.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing frequent laboratory testing for patients who are stable on warfarin: a mixed methods study of de-implementation in five anticoagulation clinics.

BACKGROUND: Patients on chronic warfarin therapy require regular laboratory monitoring to safely manage warfarin. Recent studies have challenged the need for routine monthly blood draws in the most stable warfarin-treated patients, suggesting the safety of less frequent laboratory testing (up to every 12 weeks). De-implementation efforts aim to reduce the use of low-value clinical practices. To explore barriers and facilitators of a de-implementation effort to reduce the use of frequent laboratory tests for patients with stable warfarin management in nurse/pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinics, we performed a mixed-methods study conducted within a state-wide collaborative quality improvement collaborative. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted post-implementation semi-structured interviews with a total of eight anticoagulation nurse or pharmacist staff members at five participating clinic sites to assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementing frequent international normalized ratio (INR) laboratory testing among patients with stable warfarin control. Interview guides were based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease (TICD) framework. Informed by interview themes, a survey was developed and administered to all anticoagulation clinical staff (n = 62) about their self-reported utilization of less frequent INR testing and specific barriers to de-implementing the standard (more frequent) INR testing practice. RESULTS: From the interviews, four themes emerged congruent with TICD domains: (1) staff overestimating their actual use of less frequent INR testing (individual health professional factors), (2) barriers to appropriate patient engagement (incentives and resources), (3) broad support for an electronic medical record flag to identify potentially eligible patients (incentives and resources), and (4) the importance of personalized nurse/pharmacist feedback (individual health professional factors). In the survey (65% response rate), staff report offering less frequent INR testing to 56% (46-66%) of eligible patients. Most survey responders (n = 24; 60%) agreed that an eligibility flag in the electronic medical record would be very helpful. Twenty-four (60%) respondents agreed that periodic, personalized feedback on use of less frequent INR testing would also be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging information system notifications, reducing additional work load burden for participating patients and providers, and providing personalized feedback are strategies that may improve adoption and utilization new policies in anticoagulation clinics that focus on de-implementation.

SAMe-TT2R2 predicts quality of anticoagulation in patients with acute venous thromboembolism: The MAQI2 experience.

A high SAMe-TT2R2 score predicted poor warfarin control and adverse events among atrial fibrillation patients. However, the SAMe-TT2R2 score has not been well validated in venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients. A cohort of 1943 warfarin-treated patients with acute VTE was analyzed to correlate the SAMe-TT2R2 score with time in therapeutic range (TTR) and clinical adverse events. A TTR <60% was more frequent among patients with a high (>2) versus low (0-1) SAMe-TT2R2 score (63.4% vs 52.3%, p<0.0001). A high SAMe-TT2R2 score (>2) correlated with increased overall adverse events (7.9 vs 4.5 overall adverse events/100 patient years, p=0.002), driven primarily by increased recurrent VTE rates (4.2 vs 1.5 recurrent VTE/100 patient years, p=0.0003). The SAMe-TT2R2 score had a modest predictive ability for international normalized ratio (INR) quality and adverse clinical events among warfarin-treated VTE patients. The utility of the SAMe-TT2R2 score to guide clinical decision-making remains to be investigated.

Prescribing trends of atrial fibrillation patients who switched from warfarin to a direct oral anticoagulant.

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents offer several lifestyle and therapeutic advantages for patients relative to warfarin in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). These alternative agents are increasingly used in the treatment of AF, however the adoption practices, patient profiles, and reasons for switching to a DOAC from warfarin have not been well studied. Through the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative, abstracted data from 3873 AF patients, enrolled between 2010 and 2015, were collected on demographics and comorbid conditions, stroke and bleeding risk scores, and reasons for anticoagulant switching. Over the study period, patients who switched from warfarin to a DOAC had similar baseline characteristics, risk scores, and insurance status but differed in baseline CrCl. The most common reasons for switching were patient related ease of use concerns (37.5%) as opposed to clinical reasons (16.5% of patients). Only 13% of patients that switched to a DOAC switched back to warfarin by the end of the study period.

Sociodemographic factors in patients continuing warfarin vs those transitioning to direct oral anticoagulants.

Clinical factors and patient preferences are important for selecting oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The relative association of sociodemographic factors with anticoagulant use is unknown. We evaluated a prospective cohort to compare sociodemographic variables in patients who continued on warfarin for AF or VTE to those who transitioned to 1 of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Adult patients, newly started on warfarin, were enrolled through 6 anticoagulation clinics across Michigan. Of 8468 patients, 53.3% had AF, 45.6% had VTE, and 1.1% had both. Of these, 696 (8.2%) switched from warfarin to a DOAC. There were no significant differences between switchers and nonswitchers for percentage of time with a therapeutic international normalized ratio on warfarin, urban-rural residence status, or health insurance. Switchers were more often white (83.3% vs 77.7%; P < .001), partnered (67.3% vs 59.2%; P < .001), or resided in a zip code with a higher median household income (P < .001). The results show that sociodemographic factors, such as race, partnered status, and income are associated with a patient's likelihood of switching to a DOAC vs remaining on warfarin therapy. Although clinical factors predominate, the reason for, and impact of, these observed variations in care requires further investigation.

Renal function in atrial fibrillation patients switched from warfarin to a direct oral anticoagulant.

All available direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least partially eliminated by the kidneys. These agents are increasingly being used as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of this study was to identify changes in renal function and associated DOAC dosing implications in a multicenter cohort of atrial fibrillation patients switched from warfarin to DOAC treatment. We included all patients in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative cohort who switched from warfarin to a DOAC with atrial fibrillation as their anticoagulant indication between 2009 and 2014, and who had at least two creatinine values. Compliance with FDA-recommended dosing based on renal function was assessed. Of the 189 patients switched from warfarin to a DOAC, 34 (18.0 %) had a baseline creatinine clearance <50 mL/min and 23 (12.2 %) experienced important fluctuations in renal function. Of these 23 patients, 6 (26.1 %) should have impacted the DOAC dosing, but only 1 patient actually received an appropriate dose adjustment. Additionally, 15 (7.9 %) of patients on DOACs had a dose change performed, but only one patient demonstrated a change in renal function to justify the dose adjustment. Most atrial fibrillation patients who switched from warfarin to a DOAC had stable renal function. However, the majority of patients who had a change in renal function did not receive the indicated dose change. As the use of DOACs expands, monitoring of renal function and appropriate dose adjustments are critical.