Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 277
Filtrar
1.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf ; 45(10): 706-710, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31587875

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) reports are lengthy and difficult for health systems to navigate. A quality measure index was created to allow health systems to more efficiently access information relevant to their needs. METHODS: Two tables were embedded in an EPC report. The first identified quality measures covered by the report with descriptive information. The second contained page numbers in the report's executive summary addressing these quality measures, with hyperlinks to navigate to those pages. The researchers received feedback on the tables from four health system representatives and enhanced the tables. An exercise with two health system-targeted scenarios was then created. Three trainees (one medical fellow and two pharmacy students) and two health system representatives from a large community and a small rural health system completed the exercise, with and without the enhanced tables. They timed how long it took to find answers to scenario questions and provided general feedback. RESULTS: It took 63.4% less time to find quality measure information when the hyperlinked quality measure indexing tables were used (11.0 ± 5.0 vs. 4.0 ± 3.5 minutes; p = 0.002). The health system representatives stated that the quality measure indexed tables were very easy to use and that if these tables were used in future reports they were "somewhat" or "very likely" to use quality measure-indexed EPC reports in the future. CONCLUSION: A unique concept that can allow EPC reports to be more user friendly to health systems was identified. The refined quality measure-indexed tables enhanced the efficiency of finding information and the overall likability of the report.

2.
Prehosp Emerg Care ; : 1-12, 2019 Sep 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31476930

RESUMO

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess comparative effectiveness and harms of opioid and nonopioid analgesics for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain in the prehospital setting. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, and Cochrane Central from the earliest date through May 9, 2019. Two investigators screened abstracts, reviewed full-text files, abstracted data, and assessed study level risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses when appropriate. Conclusions were made with consideration of established clinically important differences and we graded each conclusion's strength of evidence (SOE). Results: We included 52 randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies. Due to the absence or insufficiency of prehospital evidence we based conclusions for initial analgesia on indirect evidence from the emergency department setting. As initial analgesics, there is no evidence of a clinically important difference in the change of pain scores with opioids vs. ketamine administered primarily intravenously (IV) (low SOE), IV acetaminophen (APAP) (low SOE), or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) administered primarily IV (moderate SOE). The combined use of an opioid and ketamine, administered primarily IV, may reduce pain more than an opioid alone at 15 and 30 minutes (low SOE). Opioids may cause fewer adverse events than ketamine (low SOE) when primarily administered intranasally. Opioids cause less dizziness than ketamine (low SOE) but may increase the risk of respiratory depression compared with ketamine (low SOE), primarily administered IV. Opioids cause more dizziness (moderate SOE) and may cause more adverse events than APAP (low SOE), both administered IV, but there is no evidence of a clinically important difference in hypotension (low SOE). Opioids may cause more adverse events and more drowsiness than NSAIDs (low SOE), both administered primarily IV. Conclusions: As initial analgesia, opioids are no different than ketamine, APAP, and NSAIDs in reducing acute pain in the prehospital setting. Opioids may cause fewer total side effects than ketamine, but more than APAP or NSAIDs. Combining an opioid and ketamine may reduce acute pain more than an opioid alone but comparative harms are uncertain. When initial morphine is inadequate, giving ketamine may provide greater and quicker acute pain relief than giving additional morphine, although comparative harms are uncertain. Due to indirectness, strength of evidence is generally low, and future research in the prehospital setting is needed.

3.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31549153

RESUMO

AIMS: There are scarce data evaluating the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) treated in routine practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using MarketScan data from January 2012 to December 2017, we identified oral anticoagulant (OAC)-naïve NVAF patients receiving rivaroxaban (15-20 mg once daily) or warfarin, with comorbid CAD and/or PAD and ≥12 months of insurance coverage before OAC initiation. Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted using inverse probability-of-treatment weights based on propensity scores (standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all covariates after adjustment). Endpoints included a composite of major thrombotic vascular events (MTVEs) (including ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or need for lower limb revascularization/major amputation) and major bleeding. Patients were followed until an event-of-interest, discontinuation/switch of index OAC, insurance disenrolment, or end-of-data availability. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox regression. We identified 3257 rivaroxaban (30.4% received a 15 mg dose) and 5046 warfarin users with NVAF and comorbid CAD and/or PAD. Rivaroxaban was associated with a 32% (95% CI = 8-50%) reduction in the composite of MTVE. No significant difference in major bleeding was observed (HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.84-1.52). No statistical interactions were noted in subgroup analyses performed on the MTVE (P-interaction ≥ 0.35 for all) or major bleeding endpoints (P-interaction ≥ 0.09 for all). CONCLUSION: Among patients with NVAF and comorbid CAD and/or PAD, rivaroxaban use was associated with a reduced risk of MTVEs vs. warfarin, without significantly increasing major bleeding risk.

4.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 25: 1076029619868535, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31392894

RESUMO

Warfarin has been associated with renovascular calcification and worsening renal function, whereas rivaroxaban may provide a degree of renopreservation by decreasing vascular inflammation. We sought to compare rivaroxaban and warfarin's impact on renal decline in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated in routine practice. Using US MarketScan claims data from January 2012 to December 2017, we identified patients with NVAF newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage prior to initiation. Patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving hemodialysis at baseline were excluded. Outcomes included rates (events/100 person-years) of hospital or emergency department admission for acute kidney injury (AKI) or progression to stage 5 CKD or need for hemodialysis. Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted using inverse probability-of-treatment weights based on propensity scores (absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all covariates after adjustment). Patients were followed until an event, anticoagulant discontinuation/switch, insurance disenrollment, or end of data availability. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression. We assessed 36 318 rivaroxaban (19.8% received a dose <20 mg/d) and 36 281 warfarin users. Stages 3 and 4 CKD were present in 5% and 1% of patients at baseline, and proteinuria was present in 2%. Rivaroxaban was associated with a 19% (95% CI = 13%-25%) reduction in the hazard of AKI (rates = 4.91 vs 8.45) and an 18% (95% CI = 9%-26%) reduction in progression to stage 5 CKD or hemodialysis (rates = 2.67 vs 4.12). Rivaroxaban appears associated with lower hazards of undesirable renal end points versus warfarin in patients with NVAF.

5.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31432074

RESUMO

AIMS: Vascular calcification is common in diabetic patients. Warfarin has been associated with renovascular calcification and worsening renal function; rivaroxaban may provide renopreservation by decreasing vascular inflammation. We compared the impact of rivaroxaban and warfarin on renal outcomes in diabetic patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using US IBM MarketScan data from 1/2011-12/2017, we identified adults with both NVAF and diabetes, newly-initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥12-months insurance coverage prior to anticoagulation initiation. Patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or undergoing hemodialysis at baseline were excluded. Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted using inverse probability-of-treatment weighting based on propensity scores (absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all after adjustment). Outcomes included incidence rates of emergency department/hospital admissions for acute kidney injury (AKI) and the composite of the development of stage 5 CKD or need for hemodialysis. Patients were followed until an event, index anticoagulant discontinuation/switch, insurance disenrollment, or end-of-data availability. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression. We assessed 10,017 rivaroxaban (22·6% received a reduced dose) and 11,665 warfarin users. In comparison to warfarin, rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of AKI (HR = 0·83, 95%CI=0·74-0·92) and development of stage 5 CKD or need for hemodialysis HR = 0·82, 95%CI=0·70-0·96). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses had similar effects as the base-case analysis. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban appears to be associated with lower risks of undesirable renal outcomes versus warfarin in diabetic NVAF patients.

6.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 35(11): 1867-1872, 2019 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31328580

RESUMO

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of methodological choices in a meta-analysis of real-world evidence (RWE) comparing three non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods: The meta-analysis was based on a systematic review of RWE studies enrolling incident and prevalent patients aged ≥18 years with NVAF and receiving either rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban or a VKA. Five different scenarios were considered to explore the impact of the initial meta-analysis assumptions: (1) using studies that involved only incident patients; (2) excluding studies that only reported crude values and did not consider any adjustment; (3) including all studies independently of possible database overlap; (4) using studies with data on different dosages for rivaroxaban and dabigatran; and (5) assigning quality weights to studies to assess quality of reporting. These scenarios were run on three outcomes: ischemic stroke (IS), myocardial infarction (MI) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results: Across all scenarios, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly lower risks of IS and ICH than VKAs. In most scenarios, dabigatran was associated with significantly lower risks of IS and ICH. In all scenarios, apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of ICH. Conclusions: Sensitivity analyses showed the impact of similar assumptions was different depending on the outcome and the drug considered. The development of recommendations and guidelines for the inclusion of RWE in meta-analyses could prove useful in evaluating the effectiveness of health care interventions.

7.
Atherosclerosis ; 286: 142-146, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31170647

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to examine the prevalence, demographics, clinical outcomes and economic burden of hospitalizations for patients with PAD. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we retrospectively evaluated patients hospitalized with PAD in 2014. Hospitalizations in patients with PAD were identified by the presence of an International Classification of Diseases-9th Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code of 440.20-440.24. We calculated hospitalization rates/100,000 patients, the proportion of hospitalizations with a major adverse limb event (MALE), as well as minor amputation, mortality, median (interquartile range) length-of-stay (LOS) and treatment costs (in 2017 US$). A separate analysis of hospitalizations of patients with clinical limb ischemia defined as Fontaine class III or IV PAD (440.22, resting pain; 440.23-440.24, ulcers or gangrene) was also performed. RESULTS: We identified 286,160 hospitalizations for patients with PAD. The rate of hospitalizations for PAD was 89.5/100,000, with 137,050 (or 45%) of these having Fontaine class III-IV disease. The proportion of hospitalizations resulting in MALE, major or minor lower extremity amputation or in-hospital death was 45.8%, 8.9%, 8.2% and 3.1%, respectively. Median hospital LOS was 5 (3, 9) days and costs were $15,755 ($8972, $27,800), resulting in an annual cost burden for hospitalization of patients with PAD of ∼$6.31 billion. In hospitalizations of Fontaine class III-IV PAD, MALE, major and minor amputation and death occurred in 60.9%, 16.8%, 15.8% and 3.3% of cases, respectively. Median LOS and costs were 7 (4, 11) days and $18,984 ($10,913, $31,816). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations of patients with PAD represent a substantial medical and financial burden for patients and the US healthcare system.

8.
J Comp Eff Res ; 8(11): 889-905, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31167554

RESUMO

Aim: Real-world effectiveness of canagliflozin 300 mg versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) was examined in patients with Type II diabetes. Patients & methods: Patients were selected from the Optum integrated database of administrative claims and electronic health record data (1 January 2013 to 31 March 2015). Results: Patients were less likely to discontinue (p < 0.0001) or switch (p = 0.0048), more likely to add-on treatment (p = 0.0314), and achieve HbA1c <8.0% (p = 0.0364) or weight loss ≥5% (p < 0.0001) with canagliflozin versus GLP1RAs over 9 months. Mean HbA1c was similar at 3-month intervals over 9 months with canagliflozin and GLP1RAs. Conclusion: Patients were less likely to discontinue or switch with canagliflozin than GLP1RA, and were more likely to add-on. Canagliflozin patients were more likely to achieve HbA1c <8.0% and weight loss ≥5% than GLP1RA patients.

9.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 48(3): 366-372, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31228038

RESUMO

Prescribers' concern regarding falls resulting in intracranial hemorrhage is often cited as a justification for under-utilization of oral anticoagulation. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of oral factor Xa inhibitors versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients at high-risk for falls. Using MarketScan claims from 11/2012-3/2017, we identified adult, oral anticoagulation-naïve, new-initiators of oral factor Xa inhibitors or warfarin with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, ≥ 12 months of insurance coverage prior to starting oral anticoagulation and a predicted 2-year risk of falls ≥ 15%. Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were balanced using inverse probability-of-treatment weights based on propensity scores. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for intracranial hemorrhage and stroke or systemic embolism were estimated. Among 25,144 nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients at high-risk for falls (observed fall rate = 11.8%/person-year), oral factor Xa inhibitor use was associated with a 43% (95% CI = 5-65%) reduced hazard of intracranial hemorrhage compared to warfarin. Oral factor Xa inhibitors did not significantly reduce the hazard of stroke or systemic embolism versus warfarin (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.66-1.11). Findings for the intracranial hemorrhage and stroke or systemic embolism endpoints were similar when apixaban and rivaroxaban were evaluated separately versus warfarin (p-interaction ≥ 0.64 for all). Oral factor Xa inhibitors reduced patients' risk of intracranial hemorrhage and were at least as effective in preventing stroke or systemic embolism as warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients at high-risk for falls.

10.
Am J Med ; 132(9): 1078-1083, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31054829

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease or undergoing hemodialysis were excluded from phase III randomized trials of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease or undergoing hemodialysis in routine practice. METHODS: Using MarketScan data from January 2012 to December 2017, we identified patients on oral anticoagulant (OAC) with naïve nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease or undergoing hemodialysis and with ≥12 months of insurance coverage before OAC initiation. Differences in baseline covariates between the rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts were adjusted using inverse probability-of-treatment weights based on propensity scores calculated using generalized boosted models and 10,000 regression trees (absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all covariates after adjustment). Patients were followed until a stroke/systemic embolism or major bleeding event, OAC discontinuation/switch, insurance disenrollment, or end of data availability. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the OAC cohorts were calculated using Cox regression. RESULTS: We identified 1896 rivaroxaban (38.7% received a dose <20 mg/d) and 4848 warfarin users. Eighty-eight percent of included patients had stage 5 chronic kidney disease or were undergoing hemodialysis. Rivaroxaban did not significantly reduce stroke or systemic embolism (HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.27-1.10) or ischemic stroke (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.30-1.50) alone, but it was associated with a significant 32% (95% CI = 1-53%) reduction in major bleeding risk compared with warfarin. CONCLUSION: Among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease or undergoing hemodialysis, rivaroxaban appears associated with significantly less major bleeding compared to warfarin.

11.
Heart Rhythm ; 2019 Apr 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31082362

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) are at risk for ventricular tachycardia (VT). Catheter ablation (CA) may reduce this risk. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CA of VT in patients with IHD. METHODS: Literature searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were performed from January 2000 through April 2018 to identify RCTs comparing a strategy of CA vs no ablation in patients with IHD and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Outcomes of interest included appropriate ICD therapies, appropriate ICD shocks, VT storm, recurrent VT/ventricular fibrillation (VF), cardiac hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. Using an inverse variance random-effects model, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 5 RCTs (N = 635 patients) were included, with a duration of follow-up ranging from 6 months to 27.9 months. Patients who underwent CA experienced decreased odds of appropriate ICD therapies (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.87), appropriate ICD shocks (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.28-0.96), VT storm (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.43-0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46-0.97) vs those who did not undergo ablation. There was no evidence of a benefit for recurrent VT/VF (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.41-1.85), although this endpoint was not reported in all trials, or for all-cause mortality (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.60-1.34). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, CA was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of appropriate ICD therapies, appropriate ICD shocks, VT storm, and cardiac hospitalizations in patients with IHD.

12.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 25: 1076029619850897, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31088302

RESUMO

Extended thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation can reduce the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) in high-risk patients. We sought to estimate the proportion of medically ill patients in the United States who might qualify for extended thromboprophylaxis according to the criteria used in the Medically-Ill Patient Assessment of Rivaroxaban versus Placebo in Reducing Post-Discharge Venous ThromboEmbolism Risk (MARINER) trial. We analyzed 2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data that provide a 20% weighted annual sample of all discharges from US acute-care hospitals. Hospitalizations for acute medically ill patients were identified as those with a primary discharge diagnosis code for heart or respiratory failure, ischemic stroke, infection, or inflammatory diseases. Patients were excluded if they were <40 years old, admitted for surgery or trauma, had a length of stay <3- or >35-days, or were contraindicated to nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. The modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE)-VTE score was used to stratify patients' risk for postdischarge VTE, with a score of 2 to 3 suggesting patients were at moderate- and ≥4 as high-risk. Of the 35 358 810 hospitalizations in the 2014 NIS, 1 849 535 were medically ill patients admitted for heart failure (10.1%), respiratory failure (12.2%), ischemic stroke (8.8%), infection (58.5%), or inflammatory diseases (10.4%). The modified IMPROVE-VTE score classified 1 186 475 (64.1%) of these hospitalizations as occurring in moderate-risk and 407 095 (22.0%) in high-risk patients. This real-world study suggests a substantial proportion of acute medically ill patients might benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis using the modified IMPROVE-VTE score and clinical elements of the MARINER trial.

13.
Diabetes Obes Metab ; 21(9): 2107-2114, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31099460

RESUMO

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using MarketScan data from January 2012 to December 2017, we identified oral anticoagulant-naïve patients with NVAF and comorbid T2D and ≥12 months of insurance coverage prior to rivaroxaban or warfarin initiation. Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weights based on propensity scores (absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all covariates after adjustment). Patients were followed until a MACE, MALE or major bleeding event, oral anticoagulant discontinuation/switch, insurance disenrolment or end of data availability. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the cohorts were calculated using Cox regression. RESULTS: We identified 10 700 rivaroxaban users (24.1% received a reduced dose) and 13 946 warfarin users. The median (25%, 75% range) age was 70 (62, 79) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 (3, 5) and duration of available follow-up was 1.4 (0.6, 2.7) years. Eleven percent of patients had peripheral artery disease, 5.1% had coronary artery disease, and 5.1% had a prior MALE, at baseline. Rivaroxaban was associated with a 25% (95% CI 4-41) reduced risk of MACE and a 63% (95% CI 35-79) reduced risk of MALE compared to warfarin. Major bleeding risk did not significantly differ between cohorts (HR 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NVAF and T2D treated in routine practice, rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of both MACE and MALE versus warfarin, with no significant difference in major bleeding.

14.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 67(8): 1571-1581, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31140587

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To assess adverse effects of pharmacologic antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults 65 years of age or older. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Specialist or generalist outpatient setting, rehabilitation facility, and nursing facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Persons 65 years and older with MDD. INTERVENTION: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), bupropion, mirtazapine, trazodone, vilazodone, or vortioxetine compared with another antidepressant, placebo, or nonpharmacologic therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Adverse events, arrhythmias, cognitive impairment, falls, fractures, hospitalization, mortality, QTc prolongation, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials and two observational studies were included. Most studies evaluated treatment of the acute phase (<12 wk) of MDD of moderate severity. SSRIs led to a statistically similar frequency of overall adverse events vs placebo (moderate strength of evidence [SOE]), but SNRIs caused more overall adverse events vs placebo (high SOE) during the acute treatment phase. Both SSRIs and SNRIs led to more study withdrawals due to adverse events vs placebo (SSRIs low SOE; SNRIs moderate SOE). Duloxetine led to a more falls vs placebo (moderate SOE) during 24 weeks of acute and continuation treatment of MDD. CONCLUSION: In patients 65 years of age or older with MDD, treatment of the acute phase of MDD with SNRIs, but not SSRIs, was associated with a statistically greater number of overall adverse events vs placebo. SSRIs and SNRIs led to a greater number of study withdrawals due to adverse events vs placebo. Duloxetine increased the risk of falls that as an outcome was underreported in the literature. Few studies examined head-to-head comparisons, most trials were not powered to evaluate adverse events, and results of observational studies may be confounded. Comparative long-term studies reporting specific adverse events are needed to inform clinical decision making regarding choice of antidepressants in this population. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1571-1581, 2019.

15.
J Med Econ ; 22(8): 751-759, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30939954

RESUMO

Objective: To assess long-term healthcare costs related to ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding (MB) events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Materials and methods: Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart database from 1/2009-12/2016 was analyzed. Adult patients with ≥1 stroke/SE hospitalization (index date) were matched 1:1 to patients without stroke/SE (random index date), based on propensity scores. Patients with an MB event were matched to patients without MB. All patients had an NOAC dispensing overlapping index date, ≥12 months of eligibility pre-index date, and ≥1 NVAF diagnosis. The observation period spanned from the index date until the earliest date of death, switch to warfarin, end of insurance coverage, or end of data availability. Mean costs were evaluated: (1) per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and (2) at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years using Lin's method. Results: The cost differences were, respectively, $48,807 and $28,298 PPPY for NOAC users with stroke/SE (n = 1,340) and those with MB (n = 3,774) events compared to controls. Cost differences of patients with vs without stroke/SE were $49,876, $51,627, $57,822, and $60,691 at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years post-index, respectively (p < 0.001). These cost differences were $31,292, $35,658, $44,069, and $47,022 for patients with vs without MB after 1, 2, 3, and 4 years post-index, respectively (p < 0.001). Limitations: Limitations include unobserved confounders, coding and/or billing inaccuracies, limited sample sizes over longer follow-up, and the under-reporting of mortality for deaths occurring after 2011. Conclusions: The incremental healthcare costs incurred by patients with vs without stroke/SE was nearly twice as high as those of patients with vs without MB. Moreover, each additional year up to 4 years after the first event was associated with an incremental cost for patients with a stroke/SE or MB event compared to those without an event.

17.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 48(1): 149-157, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30729377

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Various risk stratification methods exist for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). We used the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) as a risk-stratification method to understand the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PE population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with ≥ 1 inpatient PE diagnosis (index date = discharge date) from October 2011-June 2015 as well as continuous enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre- and 3 months post-index date were included. We defined a sPESI score of 0 as low-risk (LRPE) and all others as high-risk (HRPE). Hospital-acquired complications (HACs) during the index hospitalization, 90-day follow-up PE-related outcomes, and health care utilization and costs were compared between HRPE and LRPE patients. RESULTS: Of 6746 PE patients, 95.4% were men, 67.7% were white, and 22.0% were African American; LRPE occurred in 28.4% and HRPE in 71.6%. Relative to HRPE patients, LRPE patients had lower Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (1.0 vs. 3.4, p < 0.0001) and other baseline comorbidities, fewer HACs (11.4% vs. 20.0%, p < 0.0001), less bacterial pneumonia (10.6% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.0001), and shorter average inpatient lengths of stay (8.8 vs. 11.2 days, p < 0.0001) during the index hospitalization. During follow-up, LRPE patients had fewer PE-related outcomes of recurrent venous thromboembolism (4.4% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.0077), major bleeding (1.2% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.0382), and death (3.7% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.0001). LRPE patients had fewer inpatient but higher outpatient visits per patient, and lower total health care costs ($12,021 vs. $16,911, p < 0.0001) than HRPE patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using the sPESI score identifies a PE cohort with a lower clinical and economic burden.

18.
Pharmacotherapy ; 39(2): 196-203, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30597611

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) often have multiple comorbidities requiring concomitant medications in addition to their oral anticoagulant (OAC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of polypharmacy on the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients with NVAF managed in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective claims analysis. DATA SOURCE: United States Truven MarketScan database (November 2012-March 2017). PATIENTS: Adults who were OAC naïve during the 12 months before the day of the first qualifying rivaroxaban or warfarin dispensing (index date); had at least two International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision diagnosis codes for atrial fibrillation without codes suggesting valvular heart disease; had at least 12 months of continuous insurance coverage prior to the qualifying OAC dispensing; and were experiencing polypharmacy (concomitant prescription claims for five or more unique chronic medication claims) were included. Patients who had concomitant prescription claims for ≥ 10 unique chronic medication claims constituted the substantial polypharmacy cohort used in the secondary analysis. Patients receiving rivaroxaban were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients receiving warfarin (13,981 patients in each polypharmacy OAC group, and 1765 patients in each substantial polypharmacy OAC group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were followed until occurrence of an event (stroke or systemic embolism [SSE] combined [primary effectiveness outcome] or major bleeding [primary safety outcome]), OAC discontinuation or switch (30-day permissible gap), insurance disenrollment, or end of follow-up period. Rates of SSE, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding were compared by using Cox regression, reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In patients with NVAF taking five or more chronic medications, rivaroxaban was associated with a 34% (95% CI 12-50) and 40% (95% CI 16-57) hazard reduction of SSE and ischemic stroke, respectively. Occurrence of major bleeding was similar between OAC cohorts (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.28). A secondary analysis in patients with NVAF with substantial polypharmacy (taking ≥ 10 chronic medications) was also performed. Similar trends in SSE (HR 0.44), ischemic stroke alone (HR 0.62), and major bleeding (HR 1.07) were observed in patients with NVAF who had substantial polypharmacy, although 95% CIs crossed 1.0 for each outcome in this smaller study cohort. CONCLUSION: This real-world study suggests that in the setting of polypharmacy and NVAF, rivaroxaban is an effective and safe alternative to warfarin.

19.
Am J Med ; 132(4): 498-504, 2019 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30582894

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of prolonged anticoagulation with rivaroxaban following a provoked venous thromboembolism. METHODS: Using US MarketScan claims from November 2012 to March 2017, we identified adults with ≥1 primary hospitalization or emergency department diagnosis code for venous thromboembolism, a provoking (major or minor, persistent or transient) risk factor, at least 3 months of continuous rivaroxaban treatment, and ≥12 months of continuous insurance benefits prior to their qualifying venous thromboembolism. Patients were categorized as either continuing rivaroxaban or discontinuing anticoagulation (no anticoagulation or nonaspirin antiplatelet agents but may have received aspirin) after the initial 3 months of rivaroxaban treatment (index date). Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted for using inverse probability-of-treatment weights based on propensity scores (absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all covariates after adjustment). Twelve month incidences of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding were compared between cohorts using Cox regression (according to an intention-to-treat methodology) and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among patients experiencing a provoked venous thromboembolism and treated with rivaroxaban for the first 3 months (N=4,990), continued rivaroxaban use beyond 3 months (median [25%, 75% range duration of additional rivaroxaban use = 3 [2, 5] months) was associated with a 44% (95% CI of 9%-66%) lower hazard of recurrent venous thromboembolism without altering major bleeding risk [HR of 0.87, 95% CI of 0.51-1.49] versus anticoagulation discontinuation (with or without aspirin use). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests continuing rivaroxaban after the initial 3 month period was associated with a decreased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism. The observed reduction in recurrent venous thromboembolism with prolonged rivaroxaban use was not associated with a significant change in major bleeding risk.

20.
Eur J Haematol ; 2018 Oct 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30328143

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between rivaroxaban and warfarin and major bleeding risk in unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients. METHODS: Using US MarketScan claims from 1/2012-12/2016, we identified patients who had ≥1 primary hospitalization/emergency department visit diagnosis code for an unprovoked VTE, newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin within 30 days after the VTE and ≥12 months of insurance coverage prior to the VTE. Differences in baseline covariates were adjusted using inverse-probability-of-treatment weights based on propensity scores (residual absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all covariates). Endpoints included any major, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, intracranial, and other bleeds. Patients were followed for up to 12 months or until endpoint occurrence, index oral anticoagulant discontinuation/switch, insurance disenrollment or end of follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 10 489 rivaroxaban and 26 364 warfarin patients with an unprovoked VTE. Upon Cox regression, rivaroxaban reduced patients' hazard of major bleeding by 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8%-42%), gastrointestinal bleeding by 38% (95% CI = 14%-55%), and intracranial hemorrhage by 81% (95% CI = 41%-99%) vs warfarin. No subtype of major bleeding occurred statistically more often in rivaroxaban vs warfarin-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of overall, gastrointestinal, and intracranial major bleeding vs warfarin in unprovoked VTE. No bleeding subtype was significantly more frequent in rivaroxaban patients.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA