Liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds for patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Prior trials suggest it is safe to defer transfusion at hemoglobin levels above 7 to 8 g/dL in most patients. Patients with acute coronary syndrome may benefit from higher hemoglobin levels. METHODS: We performed a pilot trial in 110 patients with acute coronary syndrome or stable angina undergoing cardiac catheterization and a hemoglobin <10 g/dL. Patients in the liberal transfusion strategy received one or more units of blood to raise the hemoglobin level ≥10 g/dL. Patients in the restrictive transfusion strategy were permitted to receive blood for symptoms from anemia or for a hemoglobin <8 g/dL. The predefined primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or unscheduled revascularization 30 days post randomization. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups except age (liberal, 67.3; restrictive, 74.3). The mean number of units transfused was 1.6 in the liberal group and 0.6 in the restrictive group. The primary outcome occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the liberal group and 14 (25.5%) in the restrictive group (risk difference = 15.0%; 95% confidence interval of difference 0.7% to 29.3%; P = .054 and adjusted for age P = .076). Death at 30 days was less frequent in liberal group (n = 1, 1.8%) compared to restrictive group (n = 7, 13.0%; P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: The liberal transfusion strategy was associated with a trend for fewer major cardiac events and deaths than a more restrictive strategy. These results support the feasibility of and the need for a definitive trial.

Designing a strategy to promote safe, innovative off-label use of medications.

Innovative off-label medication use (defined as prescribing with reasonable rationale for use, but insufficient evidence to allay safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness concerns, yet is not clinical research) is common practice and provides challenges to ensuring high-quality health care and patient safety. This article describes a strategy to promote policy and standardization of innovative off-label medication use, ensure oversight of patient safety, and prospectively assess efficacy. A multidisciplinary group developed a policy and process to regulate innovative off-label medication use that standardizes formulary review, maximizes peer expertise input, and minimizes institution liability by evaluating the effectiveness of use, promoting evidence-based practices, and ensuring ethical obligations to patients and society. This strategy has been implemented through institutional staff structure. The review process balances benefits/risks for biologically plausible therapy that lacks rigorous data support. The authors' strategy illustrates collaboration that enables a priori consideration for innovative off-label medication use while providing safety surveillance and outcomes monitoring.

United States medical practice summary: innovative off-label medication use.

Data are limited regarding how academic medical centers (AMCs) deal with medication use that represents a departure from product labeling; has reasonable rationale for use, but insufficient evidence to allay safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness concerns; yet is not clinical research (defined as innovative off-label medication use). This report describes national trends in management of innovative off-label medication use. A cross-sectional survey of US AMCs was conducted. Survey questionnaires were directed to drug information centers or pharmacy directors. Of 469 AMCs contacted, 104 responded (22%). Fifty-nine AMCs identified innovative off-label use as a challenge. Only 18 AMCs developed strategies to address this issue: 12 requiring initial reviews and 8 requiring clinical monitoring. Sixty-five AMCs indicated interest in data sharing of clinical outcomes for innovative off-label protocol(s). Innovative off-label medication use is a widely recognized challenge; however, few prospectively active AMC responses exist. The authors suggest development of systematic structured approaches within and across AMCs.

Addressing innovative off-label medication use at an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: A large hospital's systematic and evidence-based approach to adjudicating, monitoring, and ensuring the safety of off-label medication use is described. SUMMARY: In 2003 the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC)-Presbyterian implemented a policy that created a formal process for the systematic evaluation of formulary requests and drug-utilization patterns indicating or suggesting off-label use. Explicit criteria were developed for differentiating "innovative off-label use" (i.e., use based on a reasonable rationale yet lacking definitive scientific support in the form of fully published randomized controlled trials) from medication use more appropriately classified as clinical research. The UPMC-Presbyterian policy also outlined a process for the development, implementation, and evaluation of guidelines on innovative off-label use, including the collection of efficacy and safety outcomes. As of October 2012, 31 proposals for off-label medication use had been evaluated by the medical center's pharmacy and therapeutics committee and formulary subcommittee. Thirteen requests resulted in a determination of innovative off-label use and the development of prescribing guidelines, and 10 prompted the extension of an agent's current formulary status; in 6 cases, proposed off-label uses were determined to constitute clinical research. In some instances, innovative off-label medication use generated safety and outcomes data that led to changes in local standards of care. An algorithm to guide decision-making with regard to requests and proposals for off-label medication use is provided. CONCLUSION: The UPMC-Presbyterian experience indicates that off-label medication use can be effectively managed using evidence-based principles and peer review mechanisms.

The value and throughput of rest Thallium-201/stress Technetium -99m sestamibi dual-isotope myocardial SPECT.

Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy is an established method in cardiology for the diagnosis and evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). Thallium-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging has been widely accepted as non-invasive diagnostic procedure for detection of CAD, risk stratification and myocardial viability assessment. But, standard Tl-201 redistribution and same day or 2-day rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi protocols are time-consuming. Hence, the dual isotope rest thallium-201/stress technetium-99m sestamibi gated single-photon emission tomography protocol has gained increasing popularity for these applications. Combining the use of thallium-201 with technetium-99m agents permits optimal image resolution and simultaneous assessment of viability. Dual-isotope imaging may be separate or simultaneous acquisition set-up. The more rapid completion of these studies is appreciated as an advantage by patients, technologists, interpreting and referring physicians, nurses and hospital management. Simultaneous imaging has the potential advantages of precise pixel registration and artifacts, if present, are identical in both thallium and sestamibi, and require only one set of imaging. Also, there are some disadvantages of spillover of activity from the Tc-99m to the Tl-201 window. Fortunately, despite this problem it can be overcome. Separate acquisition dual isotope also has some disadvantages. Difference in defect resolution in attenuation and scatter between T-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi potentially results in interpretation problems. But, studies about cost-effectiveness of dual isotope imaging showed that some selective elimination of the rest studies may decrease the cost of the nuclear procedures and should be considered in the current care health system.

Poor 1-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions in systemic lupus erythematosus: report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry.

BACKGROUND: Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have premature and accelerated atherosclerosis. Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used frequently to treat coronary artery disease in SLE, little is known regarding PCI outcomes immediately after PCI and after discharge. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline demographic, procedure-related, and adverse outcome data on consecutive patients undergoing PCI during 5 recruitment "waves" of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry across 23 clinical centers were collected. SLE patients (n=28) were compared with non-SLE patients (n=3385). SLE patients were younger and more often female in comparison with non-SLE patients undergoing PCI. SLE patients were less likely than non-SLE patients to have hyperlipidemia but had a similar prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and tobacco use. The prevalence of multivessel disease was similar between groups. Initial intervention success (by angiographic definition) was not significantly different between groups. At 1 year, SLE patients were more likely to experience a myocardial infarction (15.6% versus 4.8%, P=0.01) and more often required repeat PCI (31.3% versus 11.8%, P=0.009) than non-SLE patients, even after adjustment for important covariates. CONCLUSIONS: SLE patients had significantly worse cardiovascular outcomes at 1 year than non-SLE patients. Even considering the small number of SLE patients, these differences were striking. Further study is warranted to explore other factors potentially accounting for this disparity, including SLE disease activity and duration, presence of hypercoagulable state, and immunosuppressive therapy.