Person:

Singer, Daniel

Background: A hospital admission offers smokers an opportunity to quit. Smoking cessation counseling provided in the hospital is effective, but only if it continues for more than one month after discharge. Providing smoking cessation medication at discharge may add benefit to counseling. A major barrier to translating this research into clinical practice is sustaining treatment during the transition to outpatient care. An evidence-based, practical, cost-effective model that facilitates the continuation of tobacco treatment after discharge is needed. This paper describes the design of a comparative effectiveness trial testing a hospital-initiated intervention against standard care. Methods/design: A two-arm randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of standard post-discharge care with a multi-component smoking cessation intervention provided for three months after discharge. Current smokers admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital who receive bedside smoking cessation counseling, intend to quit after discharge and are willing to consider smoking cessation medication are eligible. Study participants are recruited following the hospital counseling visit and randomly assigned to receive Standard Care or Extended Care after hospital discharge. Standard Care includes a recommendation for a smoking cessation medication and information about community resources. Extended Care includes up to three months of free FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and five proactive computerized telephone calls that use interactive voice response technology to provide tailored motivational messages, offer additional live telephone counseling calls from a smoking cessation counselor, and facilitate medication refills. Outcomes are assessed at one, three, and six months after hospital discharge. The primary outcomes are self-reported and validated seven-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at six months. Other outcomes include short-term and sustained smoking cessation, post-discharge utilization of smoking cessation treatment, hospital readmissions and emergency room visits, and program cost per quit. Discussion: This study tests a disseminable smoking intervention model for hospitalized smokers. If effective and widely adopted, it could help to reduce population smoking rates and thereby reduce tobacco-related mortality, morbidity, and health care costs.

Background: Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy remains the most common method of stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a widely cited measure of the quality of VKA therapy. We sought to identify factors associated with TTR in a large, international clinical trial. Methods and Results: TTR (international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0 to 3.0) was determined using standard linear interpolation in patients randomized to warfarin in the ROCKET AF trial. Factors associated with TTR at the individual patient level (i‐TTR) were determined via multivariable linear regression. Among 6983 patients taking warfarin, recruited from 45 countries grouped into 7 regions, the mean i‐TTR was 55.2% (SD 21.3%) and the median i‐TTR was 57.9% (interquartile range 43.0% to 70.6%). The mean time with INR <2 was 29.1% and the mean time with an INR >3 was 15.7%. While multiple clinical features were associated with i‐TTR, dominant determinants were previous warfarin use (mean i‐TTR of 61.1% for warfarin‐experienced versus 47.4% in VKA‐naïve patients) and geographic region where patients were managed (mean i‐TTR varied from 64.1% to 35.9%). These effects persisted in multivariable analysis. Regions with the lowest i‐TTRs had INR distributions shifted toward lower INR values and had longer inter‐INR test intervals. Conclusions: Independent of patient clinical features, the regional location of medical care is a dominant determinant of variation in i‐TTR in global studies of warfarin. Regional differences in mean i‐TTR are heavily influenced by subtherapeutic INR values and are associated with reduced frequency of INR testing.

Background: While anticoagulation clinics have been shown to deliver tailored, high‐quality care to patients receiving warfarin therapy, communication barriers with limited English proficient (LEP) patients may lead to disparities in anticoagulation outcomes. Methods and Results: We analyzed data on 3770 patients receiving care from the Massachusetts General Hospital Anticoagulation Management Service (AMS) from 2009 to 2010. This included data on international normalized ratio (INR) tests and patient characteristics, including language and whether AMS used a surrogate for primary communication. We calculated percent time in therapeutic range (TTR for INR between 2.0 and 3.0) and time in danger range (TDR for INR <1.8 or >3.5) using the standard Rosendaal interpolation method. There were 241 LEP patients; LEP patients, compared with non‐LEP patients, had a higher number of comorbidities (3.2 versus 2.9 comorbidities, P=0.004), were more frequently uninsured (17.0% versus 4.3%, P<0.001), and less educated (47.7% versus 6.0% ≤high school education, P<0.001). LEP patients compared with non‐LEP patients spent less TTR (71.6% versus 74.0%, P=0.007) and more TDR (12.9% versus 11.3%, P=0.018). In adjusted analyses, LEP patients had lower TTR as compared with non‐LEP patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.1, 2.2]). LEP patients who used a communication surrogate spent less TTR and more TDR. Conclusion: Even within a large anticoagulation clinic with a high average TTR, a small but significant decrease in TTR was observed for LEP patients compared with English speakers. Future studies are warranted to explore how the use of professional interpreters impact TTR for LEP patients.

Background: Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a standard quality measure of the use of warfarin. We assessed the relative effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin at the level of trial center TTR (cTTR) since such analysis preserves randomized comparisons. Methods and Results: TTR was calculated using the Rosendaal method, without exclusion of international normalized ratio (INR) values performed during warfarin initiation. Measurements during warfarin interruptions >7 days were excluded. INRs were performed via standardized finger‐stick point‐of‐care devices at least every 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint (stroke or non‐central nervous system embolism) was examined by quartiles of cTTR and by cTTR as a continuous function. Centers with the highest cTTRs by quartile had lower‐risk patients as reflected by lower CHADS2 scores (P<0.0001) and a lower prevalence of prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (P<0.0001). Sites with higher cTTR were predominantly from North America and Western Europe. The treatment effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on the primary endpoint was consistent across a wide range of cTTRs (P value for interaction=0.71). The hazard of major and non‐major clinically relevant bleeding increased with cTTR (P for interaction=0.001), however, the estimated reduction by rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the hazard of intracranial hemorrhage was preserved across a wide range of threshold cTTR values. Conclusions: The treatment effect of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is consistent regardless of cTTR.

Objective: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and aortic stenosis (AS) with patients with AF with mitral regurgitation (MR) or aortic regurgitation (AR) and patients without significant valve disease (no SVD). Methods: Using Rivaroxaban Once-Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) data, we analysed efficacy and safety outcomes, adjusting hazard ratios (HRs) for potential confounders using Cox regression analysis. Results: Among 14 119 intention-to-treat ROCKET AF trial patients, a trial that excluded patients with mitral stenosis or artificial valve prosthesis, 214 had AS with or without other valve abnormalities, 1726 had MR or AR and 12 179 had no SVD. After adjusting for prognostic factors, the composite of stroke, systemic embolism or vascular death increased approximately twofold in patients with AS (AS 10.84, MR or AR 4.54 and no SVD 4.31 events per 100 patient-years, p=0.0001). All-cause death also significantly increased (AS 11.22, MR or AR 4.90 and no SVD 4.39 events per 100 patient-years, p=0.0003). Major bleeding occurred more frequently in AS (adjusted HR 1.61, confidence intervals (CI) 1.03 to 2.49, p<0.05) and MR or AR (HR 1.30, 1.07 to 1.57, p<0.01) than in no SVD, but there was no difference between AS and MR or AR (HR 1.24, 0.78 to 1.97). The relative efficacy of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was consistent among patients with and without valvular disease. Rivaroxaban was associated with higher rates of major bleeding than warfarin in patients with MR or AR (HR 1.63, 1.15 to 2.31). Conclusions: We found that patients with AF and AS on oral anticoagulants may have distinctly different efficacy and safety outcomes than patients with MR or AR or no SVD. Trial registration number NCT00403767; Post-results.

Background: Atrial fibrillation is associated with higher mortality. Identification of causes of death and contemporary risk factors for all‐cause mortality may guide interventions. Methods and Results: In the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were randomized to rivaroxaban or dose‐adjusted warfarin. Cox proportional hazards regression with backward elimination identified factors at randomization that were independently associated with all‐cause mortality in the 14 171 participants in the intention‐to‐treat population. The median age was 73 years, and the mean CHADS 2 score was 3.5. Over 1.9 years of median follow‐up, 1214 (8.6%) patients died. Kaplan–Meier mortality rates were 4.2% at 1 year and 8.9% at 2 years. The majority of classified deaths (1081) were cardiovascular (72%), whereas only 6% were nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. No significant difference in all‐cause mortality was observed between the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms (P=0.15). Heart failure (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.33–1.70, P<0.0001) and age ≥75 years (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.51–1.90, P<0.0001) were associated with higher all‐cause mortality. Multiple additional characteristics were independently associated with higher mortality, with decreasing creatinine clearance, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, male sex, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes being among the most strongly associated (model C‐index 0.677). Conclusions: In a large population of patients anticoagulated for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, ≈7 in 10 deaths were cardiovascular, whereas <1 in 10 deaths were caused by nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. Optimal prevention and treatment of heart failure, renal impairment, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes may improve survival. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the association between maximum daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden and risk of ischaemic stroke. Background: Cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) enhance detection of AF, providing a comprehensive measure of AF burden. Design, setting, and patients A pooled analysis of individual patient data from five prospective studies was performed. Patients without permanent AF, previously implanted with CIEDs, were included if they had at least 3 months of follow-up. A total of 10 016 patients (median age 70 years) met these criteria. The risk of ischaemic stroke associated with pre-specified cut-off points of AF burden (5 min, 1, 6, 12, and 23 h, respectively) was assessed. Results: During a median follow-up of 24 months, 43% of 10 016 patients experienced at least 1 day with at least 5 min of AF burden and for them the median time to the maximum AF burden was 6 months (inter-quartile range: 1.3–14). A Cox regression analysis adjusted for the CHADS2 score and anticoagulants at baseline demonstrated that AF burden was an independent predictor of ischaemic stroke. Among the thresholds of AF burden that we evaluated, 1 h was associated with the highest hazard ratio (HR) for ischaemic stroke, i.e. 2.11 (95% CI: 1.22–3.64, P = 0.008). Conclusions: Device-detected AF burden is associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke in a relatively unselected population of CIEDs patients. This finding may add to the basis for timely and clinically appropriate decision-making on anticoagulation treatment.

Background: Dabigatran is a novel oral anticoagulant approved for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. Adoption patterns of this new agent in community practice are unknown. Methods and Results: We studied patterns of dabigatran use among patients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT‐AF) Registry between June 2010 and August 2011 and followed for 12 months. Among 9974 atrial fibrillation patients included, 1217 (12%) were treated with dabigatran during the study. Overall, patients receiving dabigatran were younger (median age 72 versus 75 years, P<0.0001), more likely to be white (92% versus 89%, P=0.005), more likely to have private insurance (33% versus 25%, P<0.0001), and less likely to have prior cardiovascular disease (4% versus 33%, P<0.0001). They had more new‐onset atrial fibrillation (8.8% versus 4.1%, P<0.0001), lower CHADS2 scores (estimated risk based on the presence of congestive heart failure, hypertension, aged ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack; mean 2.0 versus 2.3, P<0.0001), and lower Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation scores (mean 2.4 versus 2.8, P<0.0001). More than half (n=14/25, 56%) of patients with severe kidney disease were not prescribed reduced dosing, whereas 10% (n=91/920) with preserved renal function received lower dosing. Among patients not on dabigatran at baseline, 8% had dabigatran initiated during follow‐up. Patient education was significantly associated with switching from warfarin to dabigatran (adjusted odds ratio for postgraduate 1.73, P=0.007), whereas antiarrhythmic drug use significantly correlated with de novo adoption of dabigatran (adjusted odds ratio 2.4, P<0.0001). Conclusions: Patients receiving dabigatran were younger and at a lower risk of stroke and bleeding. Patients appeared to drive switching from warfarin, whereas clinical characteristics influenced de novo start of dabigatran. These data suggest cautious early uptake of dabigatran, and more careful attention to dosing adjustments is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration URL: Clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Background: In the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban–Once‐daily, oral, direct Factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial, marked regional differences in control of warfarin anticoagulation, measured as the average individual patient time in the therapeutic range (iTTR) of the international normalized ratio (INR), were associated with longer inter‐INR test intervals. The standard Rosendaal approach can produce biased low estimates of TTR after an appropriate dose change if the follow‐up INR test interval is prolonged. We explored the effect of alternative calculations of TTR that more immediately account for dose changes on regional differences in mean iTTR in the ROCKET AF trial. Methods and Results: We used an INR imputation method that accounts for dose change. We compared group mean iTTR values between our dose change–based method with the standard Rosendaal method and determined that the differences between approaches depended on the balance of dose changes that produced in‐range INRs (“corrections”) versus INRs that were out of range in the opposite direction (“overshoots”). In ROCKET AF, the overall mean iTTR of 55.2% (Rosendaal) increased up to 3.1% by using the dose change–based approach, depending on assumptions. However, large inter‐regional differences in anticoagulation control persisted. Conclusions: TTR, the standard measure of control of warfarin anticoagulation, depends on imputing daily INR values for the vast majority of follow‐up days. Our TTR calculation method may better reflect the impact of warfarin dose changes than the Rosendaal approach. In the ROCKET AF trial, this dose change–based approach led to a modest increase in overall mean iTTR but did not materially affect the large inter‐regional differences previously reported. Clinical Trial Registration URL: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Abstract Background. There are limited data on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) quality indicators according to model of HIV care delivery. Comparing HIV quality indicators by HIV care model could help inform best practices because patients achieving higher levels of quality indicators may have a mortality benefit. Methods. Using the Partners HIV Cohort, we categorized 1565 patients into 3 HIV care models: infectious disease provider only (ID), generalist only (generalist), or infectious disease provider and generalist (ID plus generalist). We examined 12 HIV quality indicators used by 5 major medical and quality associations and grouped them into 4 domains: process, screening, immunization, and HIV management. We used generalized estimating equations to account for most common provider and multivariable analyses adjusted for prespecified covariates to compare composite rates of HIV quality indicator completion. Results. We found significant differences between HIV care models, with the ID plus generalists group achieving significantly higher quality measures than the ID group in HIV management (94.4% vs 91.7%, P = .03) and higher quality measures than generalists in immunization (87.8% vs 80.6%, P = .03) in multivariable adjusted analyses. All models achieved rates that equaled or surpassed previously reported quality indicator rates. The absolute differences between groups were small and ranged from 2% to 7%. Conclusions. Our results suggest that multiple HIV care models are effective with respect to HIV quality metrics. Factors to consider when determining HIV care model include healthcare setting, feasibility, and physician and patient preference.