Allowed Publications
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Featured Buckets Admin
Reverse Chronological Sort
Allow Teaser Image

Hospital-acquired anemia

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 11:57

 

Clinical question: Is hospital acquired anemia associated with increased postdischarge adverse outcomes?

Background: Hospital acquired anemia (HAA) is defined as the development of anemia during the course of a hospitalization when starting with a normal hemoglobin on admission. The incidence of HAA is at least 25% when using the last hemoglobin prior to discharge as the index value. HAA is felt to be potentially preventable and usually iatrogenic due to phlebotomy.

Dr. Jeremiah Newsom
Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Six northern Texas hospitals.

Synopsis: There were 11,309 index hospitalizations with a median hematocrit value on admission of 40.6 g/dL. The authors defined HAA as a normal hematocrit value within the first 24 hours of admission and a hematocrit value lower than the WHO sex-specific cut points at the time of discharge: mild HAA (hematocrit greater than 33% and less than 36% in women, greater than 33% and less than 40% in men), moderate HAA (greater than 27% and less than 33%), and severe HAA (less than 27%). Mild HAA occurred in 21.6% of patients, with 10.1% of patients developing moderate HAA, and 1.4% developing severe HAA (85% underwent major procedure, diagnosis of hemorrhage or coagulation/hemorrhagic disorder). Predictors of developing moderate/severe HAA included undergoing a major diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, female sex, elective admission, hospital LOS, BUN to creatinine ratio greater than 20:1, and serum creatinine on admission. Development of severe HAA was associated with a 41% increase in the odds of 30-day readmission and a 39% increase in the odds of the composite outcome (30-day mortality and 30-day readmission).

Bottom line: Severe HAA had significant increased odds of 30-day readmission and mortality, but might not be as preventable as initially thought given the frequency of major procedures and hemorrhage in those that developed severe HAA.

Citation: Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Clark C, Halm EA. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of hospital-acquired anemia. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(5):317-22.

Dr. Newsom is a hospitalist at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Clinical question: Is hospital acquired anemia associated with increased postdischarge adverse outcomes?

Background: Hospital acquired anemia (HAA) is defined as the development of anemia during the course of a hospitalization when starting with a normal hemoglobin on admission. The incidence of HAA is at least 25% when using the last hemoglobin prior to discharge as the index value. HAA is felt to be potentially preventable and usually iatrogenic due to phlebotomy.

Dr. Jeremiah Newsom
Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Six northern Texas hospitals.

Synopsis: There were 11,309 index hospitalizations with a median hematocrit value on admission of 40.6 g/dL. The authors defined HAA as a normal hematocrit value within the first 24 hours of admission and a hematocrit value lower than the WHO sex-specific cut points at the time of discharge: mild HAA (hematocrit greater than 33% and less than 36% in women, greater than 33% and less than 40% in men), moderate HAA (greater than 27% and less than 33%), and severe HAA (less than 27%). Mild HAA occurred in 21.6% of patients, with 10.1% of patients developing moderate HAA, and 1.4% developing severe HAA (85% underwent major procedure, diagnosis of hemorrhage or coagulation/hemorrhagic disorder). Predictors of developing moderate/severe HAA included undergoing a major diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, female sex, elective admission, hospital LOS, BUN to creatinine ratio greater than 20:1, and serum creatinine on admission. Development of severe HAA was associated with a 41% increase in the odds of 30-day readmission and a 39% increase in the odds of the composite outcome (30-day mortality and 30-day readmission).

Bottom line: Severe HAA had significant increased odds of 30-day readmission and mortality, but might not be as preventable as initially thought given the frequency of major procedures and hemorrhage in those that developed severe HAA.

Citation: Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Clark C, Halm EA. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of hospital-acquired anemia. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(5):317-22.

Dr. Newsom is a hospitalist at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.

 

Clinical question: Is hospital acquired anemia associated with increased postdischarge adverse outcomes?

Background: Hospital acquired anemia (HAA) is defined as the development of anemia during the course of a hospitalization when starting with a normal hemoglobin on admission. The incidence of HAA is at least 25% when using the last hemoglobin prior to discharge as the index value. HAA is felt to be potentially preventable and usually iatrogenic due to phlebotomy.

Dr. Jeremiah Newsom
Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Six northern Texas hospitals.

Synopsis: There were 11,309 index hospitalizations with a median hematocrit value on admission of 40.6 g/dL. The authors defined HAA as a normal hematocrit value within the first 24 hours of admission and a hematocrit value lower than the WHO sex-specific cut points at the time of discharge: mild HAA (hematocrit greater than 33% and less than 36% in women, greater than 33% and less than 40% in men), moderate HAA (greater than 27% and less than 33%), and severe HAA (less than 27%). Mild HAA occurred in 21.6% of patients, with 10.1% of patients developing moderate HAA, and 1.4% developing severe HAA (85% underwent major procedure, diagnosis of hemorrhage or coagulation/hemorrhagic disorder). Predictors of developing moderate/severe HAA included undergoing a major diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, female sex, elective admission, hospital LOS, BUN to creatinine ratio greater than 20:1, and serum creatinine on admission. Development of severe HAA was associated with a 41% increase in the odds of 30-day readmission and a 39% increase in the odds of the composite outcome (30-day mortality and 30-day readmission).

Bottom line: Severe HAA had significant increased odds of 30-day readmission and mortality, but might not be as preventable as initially thought given the frequency of major procedures and hemorrhage in those that developed severe HAA.

Citation: Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Clark C, Halm EA. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of hospital-acquired anemia. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(5):317-22.

Dr. Newsom is a hospitalist at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

No benefit seen for routine low-dose oxygen after stroke

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:03

 

Routine use of low-dose oxygen supplementation in the first days after stroke doesn’t improve overall survival or reduce disability, according to a large new study.

The poststroke death and disability odds ratio was 0.97 for those receiving one of two continuous low-dose oxygen protocols, compared with the control group (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.05; P = .47).

Photodisc/ThinkStock
The Stroke Oxygen Study (SO2S) was a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial that recruited 8,003 adults with a diagnosis of acute stroke within 24 hours of hospital admission, drawing from 136 centers in the United Kingdom, according to an article in JAMA (2017;318[12]:1125-35). A total of 7,677 participants (96%) had data available for analysis of the primary outcome measure, a composite of death and disability 90 days post stroke.

Participants, who were not hypoxic at enrollment, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous oxygen supplementation for the first 72 hours after stroke, to receive supplementation only at night, or to receive oxygen when indicated by usual care protocols. The average participant age was 72 years and 55% were men in all study arms, and all stroke severity levels were included in the study.

Patients in the two intervention arms received 2 L of oxygen by nasal cannula when their baseline oxygen saturation was greater than 93%, and 3 L when oxygen saturation at baseline was 93% or less. Participation in the study did not preclude more intensive respiratory support when clinically indicated.

Nocturnal supplementation was included as a study arm for two reasons: Poststroke hypoxia is more common at night, and night-only supplementation would avoid any interference with early rehabilitation caused by cumbersome oxygen apparatus and tubing.

Not only was no benefit seen for patients in the pooled intervention arm cohorts, but no benefit was seen for night-time versus continuous oxygen as well. The odds ratio for a better outcome was 1.03 when comparing those receiving continuous oxygen to those who only received nocturnal supplementation (95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P = .61).

First author Christine Roffe, MD, and her collaborators in the Stroke Oxygen Study Collaborative Group also performed subgroup analyses and did not see benefit of oxygen supplementation for older or younger patients, or for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, or more severe strokes.

“Supplemental oxygen could improve outcomes by preventing hypoxia and secondary brain damage but could also have adverse effects,” according to Dr. Roffe, consultant at Keele (England) University and her collaborators.

A much smaller SOS pilot study, they said, had shown improved early neurologic recovery for patients who received supplemental oxygen after stroke, but the pilot also “suggested that oxygen might adversely affect outcome in patients with mild strokes, possibly through formation of toxic free radicals,” wrote the investigators.

These were effects not seen in the larger SO2S study, which was designed to have statistical power to detect even small differences and to do detailed subgroup analysis. For patients like those included in the study, “These findings do not support low-dose oxygen in this setting,” wrote Dr. Roffe and her collaborators.

Dr. Roffe reported receiving compensation from Air Liquide. The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Routine use of low-dose oxygen supplementation in the first days after stroke doesn’t improve overall survival or reduce disability, according to a large new study.

The poststroke death and disability odds ratio was 0.97 for those receiving one of two continuous low-dose oxygen protocols, compared with the control group (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.05; P = .47).

Photodisc/ThinkStock
The Stroke Oxygen Study (SO2S) was a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial that recruited 8,003 adults with a diagnosis of acute stroke within 24 hours of hospital admission, drawing from 136 centers in the United Kingdom, according to an article in JAMA (2017;318[12]:1125-35). A total of 7,677 participants (96%) had data available for analysis of the primary outcome measure, a composite of death and disability 90 days post stroke.

Participants, who were not hypoxic at enrollment, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous oxygen supplementation for the first 72 hours after stroke, to receive supplementation only at night, or to receive oxygen when indicated by usual care protocols. The average participant age was 72 years and 55% were men in all study arms, and all stroke severity levels were included in the study.

Patients in the two intervention arms received 2 L of oxygen by nasal cannula when their baseline oxygen saturation was greater than 93%, and 3 L when oxygen saturation at baseline was 93% or less. Participation in the study did not preclude more intensive respiratory support when clinically indicated.

Nocturnal supplementation was included as a study arm for two reasons: Poststroke hypoxia is more common at night, and night-only supplementation would avoid any interference with early rehabilitation caused by cumbersome oxygen apparatus and tubing.

Not only was no benefit seen for patients in the pooled intervention arm cohorts, but no benefit was seen for night-time versus continuous oxygen as well. The odds ratio for a better outcome was 1.03 when comparing those receiving continuous oxygen to those who only received nocturnal supplementation (95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P = .61).

First author Christine Roffe, MD, and her collaborators in the Stroke Oxygen Study Collaborative Group also performed subgroup analyses and did not see benefit of oxygen supplementation for older or younger patients, or for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, or more severe strokes.

“Supplemental oxygen could improve outcomes by preventing hypoxia and secondary brain damage but could also have adverse effects,” according to Dr. Roffe, consultant at Keele (England) University and her collaborators.

A much smaller SOS pilot study, they said, had shown improved early neurologic recovery for patients who received supplemental oxygen after stroke, but the pilot also “suggested that oxygen might adversely affect outcome in patients with mild strokes, possibly through formation of toxic free radicals,” wrote the investigators.

These were effects not seen in the larger SO2S study, which was designed to have statistical power to detect even small differences and to do detailed subgroup analysis. For patients like those included in the study, “These findings do not support low-dose oxygen in this setting,” wrote Dr. Roffe and her collaborators.

Dr. Roffe reported receiving compensation from Air Liquide. The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research.

 

Routine use of low-dose oxygen supplementation in the first days after stroke doesn’t improve overall survival or reduce disability, according to a large new study.

The poststroke death and disability odds ratio was 0.97 for those receiving one of two continuous low-dose oxygen protocols, compared with the control group (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.05; P = .47).

Photodisc/ThinkStock
The Stroke Oxygen Study (SO2S) was a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial that recruited 8,003 adults with a diagnosis of acute stroke within 24 hours of hospital admission, drawing from 136 centers in the United Kingdom, according to an article in JAMA (2017;318[12]:1125-35). A total of 7,677 participants (96%) had data available for analysis of the primary outcome measure, a composite of death and disability 90 days post stroke.

Participants, who were not hypoxic at enrollment, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous oxygen supplementation for the first 72 hours after stroke, to receive supplementation only at night, or to receive oxygen when indicated by usual care protocols. The average participant age was 72 years and 55% were men in all study arms, and all stroke severity levels were included in the study.

Patients in the two intervention arms received 2 L of oxygen by nasal cannula when their baseline oxygen saturation was greater than 93%, and 3 L when oxygen saturation at baseline was 93% or less. Participation in the study did not preclude more intensive respiratory support when clinically indicated.

Nocturnal supplementation was included as a study arm for two reasons: Poststroke hypoxia is more common at night, and night-only supplementation would avoid any interference with early rehabilitation caused by cumbersome oxygen apparatus and tubing.

Not only was no benefit seen for patients in the pooled intervention arm cohorts, but no benefit was seen for night-time versus continuous oxygen as well. The odds ratio for a better outcome was 1.03 when comparing those receiving continuous oxygen to those who only received nocturnal supplementation (95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P = .61).

First author Christine Roffe, MD, and her collaborators in the Stroke Oxygen Study Collaborative Group also performed subgroup analyses and did not see benefit of oxygen supplementation for older or younger patients, or for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, or more severe strokes.

“Supplemental oxygen could improve outcomes by preventing hypoxia and secondary brain damage but could also have adverse effects,” according to Dr. Roffe, consultant at Keele (England) University and her collaborators.

A much smaller SOS pilot study, they said, had shown improved early neurologic recovery for patients who received supplemental oxygen after stroke, but the pilot also “suggested that oxygen might adversely affect outcome in patients with mild strokes, possibly through formation of toxic free radicals,” wrote the investigators.

These were effects not seen in the larger SO2S study, which was designed to have statistical power to detect even small differences and to do detailed subgroup analysis. For patients like those included in the study, “These findings do not support low-dose oxygen in this setting,” wrote Dr. Roffe and her collaborators.

Dr. Roffe reported receiving compensation from Air Liquide. The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Routine low-dose oxygen did not reduce deaths or improve disability at 90 days post stroke.

Major finding: The poststroke death and disability odds ratio was 0.97 for those receiving continuous low-dose oxygen, compared with controls.

Data source: Single-blind, multisite, randomized, controlled trial of 8,003 patients admitted with acute stroke.

Disclosures: Dr. Roffe reported receiving compensation from Air Liquide. The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research.

Disqus Comments
Default

Rapid genomic testing can diagnose critically ill infants

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:03

 

Rapid, targeted genomic sequencing shows promise in quickly diagnosing critically ill infants for whom standard clinical work-ups were unsuccessful, according to Cleo C. van Diemen, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and associates.

Over the course of 1 year, 23 critically ill infants younger than 12 months who had no clear diagnosis after standard clinical work-ups underwent rapid, targeted genomics, with 7 receiving a genetic diagnosis. The median turnaround time was 12 days, falling from roughly 3 weeks at the beginning of the study to a maximum of 8 days by the end of the study.

Compound heterozygous mutations in the EPG5, RMND1, and EIF2B5 genes allowed for diagnoses of Vici syndrome, combined oxidative phosphorylation deficiency-11, and vanishing white matter, respectively. Homozygous mutations in the KLHL41, GFER, and GLB1 genes allowed for diagnoses of nemaline myopathy, progressive mitochondrial myopathy, and GM1-gangliosidosis, respectively. In addition, a 1p36.33p36.32 microdeletion was discovered in an infant with cardiomyopathy.

“The clinical relevance of rapid genome diagnostics lies in the fact that these results can be used in the clinical decisions made in caring for critically ill children in ICUs, in better genetic counseling of the parents, and in guiding their future reproductive choices,” the investigators noted.

Find the full study in Pediatrics (2017 Sep 22. doi: 10.1542/ peds.2016-2854).

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Rapid, targeted genomic sequencing shows promise in quickly diagnosing critically ill infants for whom standard clinical work-ups were unsuccessful, according to Cleo C. van Diemen, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and associates.

Over the course of 1 year, 23 critically ill infants younger than 12 months who had no clear diagnosis after standard clinical work-ups underwent rapid, targeted genomics, with 7 receiving a genetic diagnosis. The median turnaround time was 12 days, falling from roughly 3 weeks at the beginning of the study to a maximum of 8 days by the end of the study.

Compound heterozygous mutations in the EPG5, RMND1, and EIF2B5 genes allowed for diagnoses of Vici syndrome, combined oxidative phosphorylation deficiency-11, and vanishing white matter, respectively. Homozygous mutations in the KLHL41, GFER, and GLB1 genes allowed for diagnoses of nemaline myopathy, progressive mitochondrial myopathy, and GM1-gangliosidosis, respectively. In addition, a 1p36.33p36.32 microdeletion was discovered in an infant with cardiomyopathy.

“The clinical relevance of rapid genome diagnostics lies in the fact that these results can be used in the clinical decisions made in caring for critically ill children in ICUs, in better genetic counseling of the parents, and in guiding their future reproductive choices,” the investigators noted.

Find the full study in Pediatrics (2017 Sep 22. doi: 10.1542/ peds.2016-2854).

 

Rapid, targeted genomic sequencing shows promise in quickly diagnosing critically ill infants for whom standard clinical work-ups were unsuccessful, according to Cleo C. van Diemen, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and associates.

Over the course of 1 year, 23 critically ill infants younger than 12 months who had no clear diagnosis after standard clinical work-ups underwent rapid, targeted genomics, with 7 receiving a genetic diagnosis. The median turnaround time was 12 days, falling from roughly 3 weeks at the beginning of the study to a maximum of 8 days by the end of the study.

Compound heterozygous mutations in the EPG5, RMND1, and EIF2B5 genes allowed for diagnoses of Vici syndrome, combined oxidative phosphorylation deficiency-11, and vanishing white matter, respectively. Homozygous mutations in the KLHL41, GFER, and GLB1 genes allowed for diagnoses of nemaline myopathy, progressive mitochondrial myopathy, and GM1-gangliosidosis, respectively. In addition, a 1p36.33p36.32 microdeletion was discovered in an infant with cardiomyopathy.

“The clinical relevance of rapid genome diagnostics lies in the fact that these results can be used in the clinical decisions made in caring for critically ill children in ICUs, in better genetic counseling of the parents, and in guiding their future reproductive choices,” the investigators noted.

Find the full study in Pediatrics (2017 Sep 22. doi: 10.1542/ peds.2016-2854).

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM PEDIATRICS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

With inpatient flu shots, providers’ attitude problem may outweigh parents’

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:02

Provider misconceptions about parental attitudes may be a more significant barrier to inpatient flu vaccination than the parents’ actual attitudes, reported Suchitra Rao, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and her colleagues.

Surveys assessing attitudes toward inpatient influenza vaccination were given to parents/caregivers of general pediatric inpatients and to inpatient physicians, residents, nurses, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora between October 2014 and March 2015. Response rates were 95% of the 1,053 parents/caregivers and 58% of the 339 providers.

luiscar/Thinkstock
At time of admission, 37% of children received the current flu vaccine. The children’s median age was 4 years, 70% were white, 54% were male, and 44% had a high-risk medical condition. Of the 55% of parents who said their child usually gets an annual flu shot, 92% would agree to an inpatient flu shot if eligible. Of the 45% of parents who said they don’t routinely get their child an annual flu shot, 37% would agree to inpatient flu vaccination if eligible.

The parents agreed that the flu is a serious disease (92%), that flu vaccines work (58%), that flu vaccines are safe (76%), and that the vaccines are needed annually (76%), the Dr. Rao and her colleagues found.

The providers thought the most common barriers to vaccination were parental refusal because of child illness (80%) and family misconceptions about the vaccine (74%). Also, 54% of providers forgot to ask about flu vaccination status and 46% forgot to order flu vaccines.

When asked what interventions might increase flu vaccination rates in the inpatient setting, 73% of providers agreed that personal reminders might help increase vaccination rates, but only 48% thought that provider education might help do so.

Read more in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses (2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1111/irv.12482.)

Publications
Topics
Sections

Provider misconceptions about parental attitudes may be a more significant barrier to inpatient flu vaccination than the parents’ actual attitudes, reported Suchitra Rao, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and her colleagues.

Surveys assessing attitudes toward inpatient influenza vaccination were given to parents/caregivers of general pediatric inpatients and to inpatient physicians, residents, nurses, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora between October 2014 and March 2015. Response rates were 95% of the 1,053 parents/caregivers and 58% of the 339 providers.

luiscar/Thinkstock
At time of admission, 37% of children received the current flu vaccine. The children’s median age was 4 years, 70% were white, 54% were male, and 44% had a high-risk medical condition. Of the 55% of parents who said their child usually gets an annual flu shot, 92% would agree to an inpatient flu shot if eligible. Of the 45% of parents who said they don’t routinely get their child an annual flu shot, 37% would agree to inpatient flu vaccination if eligible.

The parents agreed that the flu is a serious disease (92%), that flu vaccines work (58%), that flu vaccines are safe (76%), and that the vaccines are needed annually (76%), the Dr. Rao and her colleagues found.

The providers thought the most common barriers to vaccination were parental refusal because of child illness (80%) and family misconceptions about the vaccine (74%). Also, 54% of providers forgot to ask about flu vaccination status and 46% forgot to order flu vaccines.

When asked what interventions might increase flu vaccination rates in the inpatient setting, 73% of providers agreed that personal reminders might help increase vaccination rates, but only 48% thought that provider education might help do so.

Read more in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses (2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1111/irv.12482.)

Provider misconceptions about parental attitudes may be a more significant barrier to inpatient flu vaccination than the parents’ actual attitudes, reported Suchitra Rao, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and her colleagues.

Surveys assessing attitudes toward inpatient influenza vaccination were given to parents/caregivers of general pediatric inpatients and to inpatient physicians, residents, nurses, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora between October 2014 and March 2015. Response rates were 95% of the 1,053 parents/caregivers and 58% of the 339 providers.

luiscar/Thinkstock
At time of admission, 37% of children received the current flu vaccine. The children’s median age was 4 years, 70% were white, 54% were male, and 44% had a high-risk medical condition. Of the 55% of parents who said their child usually gets an annual flu shot, 92% would agree to an inpatient flu shot if eligible. Of the 45% of parents who said they don’t routinely get their child an annual flu shot, 37% would agree to inpatient flu vaccination if eligible.

The parents agreed that the flu is a serious disease (92%), that flu vaccines work (58%), that flu vaccines are safe (76%), and that the vaccines are needed annually (76%), the Dr. Rao and her colleagues found.

The providers thought the most common barriers to vaccination were parental refusal because of child illness (80%) and family misconceptions about the vaccine (74%). Also, 54% of providers forgot to ask about flu vaccination status and 46% forgot to order flu vaccines.

When asked what interventions might increase flu vaccination rates in the inpatient setting, 73% of providers agreed that personal reminders might help increase vaccination rates, but only 48% thought that provider education might help do so.

Read more in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses (2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1111/irv.12482.)

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

How to manage bleeding in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 11:57
DOACs carry a low but significant risk of bleeding, including life-threatening bleeding.

 

Case

A 72-year-old man with a history of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension presents to the ER after an episode of hematochezia. He is prescribed dabigatran 150 mg twice daily for his AF and took his evening dose 2 hours prior to presentation. His initial exam reveals vital signs of BP 120/55, HR 105, RR 14 and bright red stool on rectal exam. His hemoglobin is 8.1 g/dL, down from 12.0 g/dL one month ago. He has normal renal function. How should you manage his gastrointestinal bleeding?

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) consist of two classes of drugs: oral factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) and direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran). They have gained substantial popularity since their commercial introduction in 2010, and are now Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in noncancer patients. DOAC use will likely increase given favorable safety profiles, reliable pharmacokinetics, and recent guidelines recommending their use over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for treatment of VTE in noncancer patients.1

A primary concern about the routine use of DOACs has been the lack of commercially available direct reversal agents. Unlike warfarin, which has an effective rapid antidote, no direct reversal agent is available for Xa inhibitors, and only recently has there been FDA approval for idarucizumab, a direct thrombin inhibitor reversal drug. Therefore, clinicians are often left wondering how to manage bleeding episodes in patients receiving DOACs.
 

Literature review

What is the risk of bleeding for patients taking DOACs?

DOACs carry a low but significant risk of bleeding, including life-threatening bleeding. There is now robust data from over 100,000 patients in randomized clinical trials of nonvalvular AF and VTE comparing the risk of major and fatal bleeding between DOACs and VKAs.2 These trials reveal an annual major bleeding rate of 2%-4% in patients with AF and 1%-2% in patients with VTE taking DOACs.

Importantly, DOACs were found to carry a statistically lower risk of major and fatal bleeding than VKAs. Patients taking DOACs have a relative risk of major bleeding of 0.72, compared with VKAs, and a RR of fatal bleeding of 0.53. Additionally, the case fatality rate for major bleeding episodes was 7.6% for DOACs versus 11.0% for warfarin, despite not having an available antidote for DOACs in these trials.3 Although there is an increased risk of bleeding from DOACs, the rates of major bleeding and of serious complications from bleeding are lower than with warfarin.
 

How long does the effect of a DOAC last?

A significant advantage of DOACs over VKAs in the setting of bleeding is their shorter half-lives, which range from a low estimate of 5 hours for rivaroxaban to a high estimate of 17 hours for dabigatran4-8 (Table 1). Given that it takes 4-5 half-lives for a drug to be functionally eliminated, coagulation typically normalizes in patients taking DOACs within 1-3 days, compared with 3-5 days for warfarin. All DOACs have significant renal clearance, and renal failure will prolong the duration of anticoagulation. For patients who are taking DOACs and present with bleeding, it is important to assess their renal function.

Are coagulation tests helpful when assessing the effect of DOACs?

Prothrombin time (PT/INR) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) should be measured in all patients presenting with significant bleeding, whether or not the patient is taking a DOAC. PT and aPTT are commonly elevated for patients taking direct thrombin inhibitors and Xa inhibitors. Although a prolonged PT and/or aPTT can be useful in determining if the anticoagulant effect from DOACs is still present, normal values of these tests do not rule out an anticoagulant effect in patients taking DOACs.9,10 Thrombin Time (TT) is a widely available test with quick results, and a normal value rules out the therapeutic effect of dabigatran. Finally, the anti–factor Xa assay is a sensitive test for Xa inhibitors, but requires calibration to the DOAC of interest in order to be reliable. Clinicians should consult with their institution’s laboratory prior to using an anti–factor Xa level to test the anticoagulant effect of a specific DOAC. Repeat coagulation testing may be useful in some clinical circumstances, especially if a patient has renal impairment.

Are there reversal agents for DOACs?

In October 2015, the FDA approved idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody fragment that binds dabigatran with much greater affinity than thrombin, thus quickly reversing the effect of the direct thrombin inhibitor. FDA approval came in response to an interim analysis of an ongoing open-label trial, RE-VERSE AD.11 This study enrolled 90 adults with major bleeding or need for an emergency procedure taking dabigatran to receive idarucizumab (2.5 g in 50 mL rapid infusion dose given twice less than 15 minutes apart for a total of 5 g). Idarucizumab immediately reversed the effect of dabigatran on clotting tests in 88%-98% of the patients. For patients with major bleeding, the median time for bleeding cessation was 11.4 hours. One thrombotic event was reported within 72 hours of drug administration. Therefore, in patients taking dabigatran with an elevated TT, idarucizumab may be used if the bleeding is life threatening and refractory to initial supportive measures.

 

 

There are no FDA-approved antidotes for the factor Xa inhibitors. One promising agent is andexanet-alfa, an inactivated form of factor Xa that irreversibly binds Xa inhibitors. The ongoing, open-label ANNEXA-4 trial12 reported a decrease in anti–factor Xa activity of ~90% after bolus administration of the drug followed by 2-hour infusion in 67 patients with life-threatening bleeding, with clinical hemostasis achieved in 79% in patients by 12 hours. However, thrombotic events occurred in 18% of the patients at 1 month. Additional safety and efficacy data, along with plans for postmarket surveillance, will be needed prior to approval for clinical use.
 

Are there other options to obtain hemostasis?

Clotting factor products, specifically fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs), are often used to attempt to reverse anticoagulation from DOACs. While FFP alone has no evidence to support its use in reversing the effect of DOACs, PCCs might reverse anticoagulation for both Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors.13 Some experts recommend unactivated PCC over activated PCC because of a theoretically increased thrombotic risk of activated PCC.14 For patients taking Xa inhibitors or dabigatran (if idarucizumab is unavailable) with life-threatening bleeding, PCC should be used in an attempt to reverse the bleeding.

Another strategy to promote hemostasis in bleeding patients taking DOACs is to use antifibrinolytics. Effective for control of bleeding in trauma and surgical patients, tranexamic acid has not been widely studied in nonsurgical bleeding, much less DOAC-related nonsurgical bleeding. A 2014 Cochrane review of a small number of trials suggested a possible mortality benefit from its use in upper GI bleeding, but the quality of included trials was poor.15 The ongoing HALT-IT trial, enrolling 8,000 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, aims to clarify the mortality benefit of tranexamic acid.16 Despite effectively promoting hemostasis in many populations of bleeding patients, tranexamic acid carries no discernible thrombotic risk.17,18 By preventing clot degradation through a downstream mechanism at low cost and risk, antifibrinolytics are a practical adjunctive therapy to control major bleeding in patients on DOACs.
 

Can charcoal or dialysis reduce the systemic concentration of DOACs?

In addition to discontinuing the DOAC, both charcoal and dialysis can reduce the systemic concentration of DOACs. If the ingestion was recent, oral activated charcoal can reduce the systemic absorption of DOACs. To date there are no data on the efficacy of charcoal in bleeding patients taking DOACs. However, in two recent trials, administration of a single dose of charcoal in healthy patients led to significantly decreased area under concentration-time curves (AUC) when given at 6 and 8 hours after ingestion of a therapeutic dose of apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively.19,20 While further studies are needed to confirm its clinical benefit, charcoal is recommended for major bleeding when given within 2 hours of ingestion of a DOAC and may be useful within 8 hours.

Unlike charcoal, which can be used for patients on Xa inhibitors or dabigatran, hemodialysis is only effective for reducing serum concentrations of dabigatran because of its low plasma protein binding (~35%). A review of 35 patients (10 with normal renal function) with severe bleeding showed significant reductions in coagulation tests (aPTT, PT, TT) and dabigatran levels after hemodialysis.21 For severe bleeding episodes particularly in patients with impaired renal function, providers should consider the use of continuous renal replacement therapy until clinical hemostasis is achieved.
 

What is the expert’s opinion?

We asked one of our hematologists with expertise in DOACs for his opinion on this topic. Most patients with DOAC-associated bleeding can be managed with supportive care because of the short half-life of these agents in patients with reasonably preserved renal function. The main scenario for escalating therapy to PCC or idarucizumab is life-threatening bleeding, such as intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal hemorrhage with hemodynamic instability. The threshold for use of idarucizumab for patients taking dabigatran with bleeding should be lower than PCCs because there is better evidence for clinical benefit with less risk.

Developing reversal agents continues to be costly, requiring extensive preclinical work and clinical trials that are difficult to do. Assuming that reversal agents become more affordable in the longer term, and safety profiles are better established, clinicians may eventually have a lower threshold for their use in a wider variety of bleeding episodes. Lastly, adverse outcomes often occur, not during the acute bleeding episode, but several weeks later in patients whose providers delay restarting anticoagulation. Thus, it is important to resume anticoagulant therapy as soon as it is safe to do so.
 

Back to the case

Our patient was given a 50-g suspension of oral activated charcoal, along with two doses of 1 g intravenous tranexamic acid 8 hours apart. He was typed and crossed for blood, and ultimately received 1 unit of packed red blood cells before stabilizing without other measures. His colonoscopy subsequently revealed a diverticular bleed with a visible vessel that was coagulated. He was discharged 2 days later after remaining clinically stable after colonoscopy.

 

 

Bottom line

For the majority of bleeding patients on DOACs, supportive care with transfusions and local hemostatic interventions to control bleeding will likely be sufficient. Because of the short half-lives of DOACs, most patients do not require additional therapy (Table 2), and these patients actually have better outcomes from major bleeding episodes than patients taking VKAs. Antifibrinolytics should be a first-line prohemostatic therapy in major bleeding. Oral activated charcoal may be effective within 2-8 hours after ingestion for reduction of serum DOAC concentrations. Finally, in cases of life-threatening bleeding, idarucizumab can be used to reverse anticoagulation for patients taking dabigatran. When idarucizumab is unavailable, or for patients taking Xa inhibitors, PCC can be used.

Dr. Hagan is chief medical resident at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. Dr. Albert is clinical instructor of medicine at UWMC. Dr. Garcia is professor of medicine and associate medical director of antithrombotic therapy at UWMC. Dr. Huang is an attending with the UWMC Medicine Consult Service and assistant clinical professor in the division of general internal medicine at UW.

Key Points

• The risk of major bleeding, and the case fatality rate of major bleeding, is significantly lower in patients taking DOACs versus VKAs

• For the majority of patients with bleeding on DOACs, withholding anticoagulation and supportive care is sufficient

• Idarucizumab is a novel and effective antidote to dabigatran, but should be reserved for patients with life-threatening bleeding

• Patients with DOAC-associated bleeding should be restarted on anticoagulation as soon as it is safe to do so



Additional Reading

Management of bleeding in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. UpToDate 2016.

How do I treat target-specific oral anticoagulant-associated bleeding? Blood 2014.

References

1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-52.

2. Chai-adisaksopha C, Crowther M, Isayama T, Lim W. The impact of bleeding complications in patients receiving target-specific oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood. 2014;124(15):2450-8.

3. Chai-adisaksopha C, Hillis C, Isayama T, Lim W, Iorio A, Crowther M. Mortality outcomes in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(11):2012-20.

4. Savaysa (edoxaban) [package insert]. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc, Tokyo, Japan; 2015. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2015/206316lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

5. Xarelto (rivaroxaban) [package insert]. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Titusville, NJ; 2011. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/202439s001lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

6. Pradaxa (dabigatran) [package insert]. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ridgefield, CT; 2011. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022512s007lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

7. Eliquis (apixaban) [package insert]. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ; 2012. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/202155s000lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

8. Scaglione F. New oral anticoagulants: comparative pharmacology with vitamin K antagonists. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(2):69-82.

9. Tripodi A. The laboratory and the direct oral anticoagulants. Blood.

2013;121(20):4032-5.

10. Samuelson BT, Cuker A, Siegal DM, Crowther M, Garcia DA. Laboratory Assessment of the Anticoagulant Activity of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs): A Systematic Review. Chest. 2016;

11. Pollack CV, Reilly PA, Eikelboom J, et al. Idarucizumab for Dabigatran Reversal. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):511-20.

12. Connolly SJ, Milling TJ, Eikelboom JW, et al. Andexanet Alfa for Acute Major Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2016.

13. Dickneite G, Hoffman M. Reversing the new oral anticoagulants with prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs): what is the evidence?. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(2):189-98.

14. Sørensen B, Spahn DR, Innerhofer P, Spannagl M, Rossaint R. Clinical review: Prothrombin complex concentrates--evaluation of safety and thrombogenicity. Crit Care. 2011;15(1):201.

15. Bennett C, Klingenberg S, Langholz E, Gluud L. Tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD006640.

16. Roberts I, Coats T, Edwards P, et al. HALT-IT – tranexamic acid for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014 Nov 19;15:450.

17. Dyba J, Chan F, Lau K, Chan A, Chan H. Tranexamic Acid is a Weak Provoking Factor for Thromboembolic Events: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Blood. 2013; 122(21): 3629.

18. Myles PS, Smith JA, Forbes A, et al. Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Coronary-Artery Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016; 376(2):136-148.

19. Wang X, Mondal S, Wang J, et al. Effect of Activated Charcoal on Apixaban Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Subjects. American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs. 2014;14(2):147-154.

20. Ollier E, Hodin S, Lanoiselée J, et al. Effect of Activated Charcoal on Rivaroxaban Complex Absorption. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016 Dec 2.

21. Chai-adisaksopha C, Hillis C, Lim W, Boonyawat K, Moffat K, Crowther M. Hemodialysis for the treatment of dabigatran-associated bleeding: a case report and systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(10):1790-8.

22. Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(4):692-4.

23. UW Anticoagulation Services. UW Medicine Pharmacy Services Web site. 2014. Available at https://depts.washington.edu/anticoag, Accessed March 8, 2017.

 

________________________________________________________________________
 

Table 1: Pharmacologic Profiles of Xa and Direct Thrombin Inhibitors4-8, 23

tmax t1/2, CrCl 50-80 t1/2 CrCl < 30 Dialyzable?

Apixaban 3-4 h 15 h 17 h No

Dabigatran 1-3 h 17 h 28 h Yes

Edoxaban 1-2 h 10-14 h no data No

Rivaroxaban 2-4 h 9 h 10 h No



tmax = time to peak serum concentration after ingestion, t1/2= serum half-life, CrCl= creatinine clearance in mL/min

*Average values assuming normal hepatic function. Aside from dabigatran, which has minimal hepatic clearance, all other DOACs can have prolonged half-lives in hepatic impairment.
 

Table 2: Management of Bleeding Patients Taking DOACs

Direct Thrombin Inhibitors (dabigatran)

Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban)Minor Bleeding

• Withhold DOAC

• Local hemostatic measures

Major Bleeding*

All of the above, AND

• Antifibrinolytic if bleeding persists

• Restore physiologic perfusion

• Charcoal if last dose within 2-8 hours

• Transfusion indications:

o Red blood cells: anemia

o Platelets: antiplatelet agents or thrombocytopenia

o Plasma: coagulopathy (dilution, DIC, liver failure), not for DOAC reversal

Life-threatening Bleeding**

All of the above, AND:

• Idarucizumab (confirm anticoagulant effect with thrombin time first)

• If idarucizumab is unavailable, use PCC

• Consider hemodialysis until hemostasis achieved, especially if patient in renal failure

All of the above, AND:

• Unactivated PCC (if available and calibrated to specific Xa inhibitor, confirm anticoagulant effect with anti-Xa level)



* Adapted from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis: bleeding with a fall in hemoglobin level ≥ 2 g/dL, OR bleeding leading to ≥ 2 units of PRBC transfused.21 Clinicians should perform risk stratification of bleeding episodes using vital signs, laboratory results, the area of bleeding, and patient comorbidities.

**Uncontrolled bleeding, OR symptomatic bleeding in a critical area or organ (such as intracranial, intraocular, intraspinal, retroperitoneal, pericardial, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome).

Publications
Topics
Sections
DOACs carry a low but significant risk of bleeding, including life-threatening bleeding.
DOACs carry a low but significant risk of bleeding, including life-threatening bleeding.

 

Case

A 72-year-old man with a history of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension presents to the ER after an episode of hematochezia. He is prescribed dabigatran 150 mg twice daily for his AF and took his evening dose 2 hours prior to presentation. His initial exam reveals vital signs of BP 120/55, HR 105, RR 14 and bright red stool on rectal exam. His hemoglobin is 8.1 g/dL, down from 12.0 g/dL one month ago. He has normal renal function. How should you manage his gastrointestinal bleeding?

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) consist of two classes of drugs: oral factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) and direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran). They have gained substantial popularity since their commercial introduction in 2010, and are now Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in noncancer patients. DOAC use will likely increase given favorable safety profiles, reliable pharmacokinetics, and recent guidelines recommending their use over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for treatment of VTE in noncancer patients.1

A primary concern about the routine use of DOACs has been the lack of commercially available direct reversal agents. Unlike warfarin, which has an effective rapid antidote, no direct reversal agent is available for Xa inhibitors, and only recently has there been FDA approval for idarucizumab, a direct thrombin inhibitor reversal drug. Therefore, clinicians are often left wondering how to manage bleeding episodes in patients receiving DOACs.
 

Literature review

What is the risk of bleeding for patients taking DOACs?

DOACs carry a low but significant risk of bleeding, including life-threatening bleeding. There is now robust data from over 100,000 patients in randomized clinical trials of nonvalvular AF and VTE comparing the risk of major and fatal bleeding between DOACs and VKAs.2 These trials reveal an annual major bleeding rate of 2%-4% in patients with AF and 1%-2% in patients with VTE taking DOACs.

Importantly, DOACs were found to carry a statistically lower risk of major and fatal bleeding than VKAs. Patients taking DOACs have a relative risk of major bleeding of 0.72, compared with VKAs, and a RR of fatal bleeding of 0.53. Additionally, the case fatality rate for major bleeding episodes was 7.6% for DOACs versus 11.0% for warfarin, despite not having an available antidote for DOACs in these trials.3 Although there is an increased risk of bleeding from DOACs, the rates of major bleeding and of serious complications from bleeding are lower than with warfarin.
 

How long does the effect of a DOAC last?

A significant advantage of DOACs over VKAs in the setting of bleeding is their shorter half-lives, which range from a low estimate of 5 hours for rivaroxaban to a high estimate of 17 hours for dabigatran4-8 (Table 1). Given that it takes 4-5 half-lives for a drug to be functionally eliminated, coagulation typically normalizes in patients taking DOACs within 1-3 days, compared with 3-5 days for warfarin. All DOACs have significant renal clearance, and renal failure will prolong the duration of anticoagulation. For patients who are taking DOACs and present with bleeding, it is important to assess their renal function.

Are coagulation tests helpful when assessing the effect of DOACs?

Prothrombin time (PT/INR) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) should be measured in all patients presenting with significant bleeding, whether or not the patient is taking a DOAC. PT and aPTT are commonly elevated for patients taking direct thrombin inhibitors and Xa inhibitors. Although a prolonged PT and/or aPTT can be useful in determining if the anticoagulant effect from DOACs is still present, normal values of these tests do not rule out an anticoagulant effect in patients taking DOACs.9,10 Thrombin Time (TT) is a widely available test with quick results, and a normal value rules out the therapeutic effect of dabigatran. Finally, the anti–factor Xa assay is a sensitive test for Xa inhibitors, but requires calibration to the DOAC of interest in order to be reliable. Clinicians should consult with their institution’s laboratory prior to using an anti–factor Xa level to test the anticoagulant effect of a specific DOAC. Repeat coagulation testing may be useful in some clinical circumstances, especially if a patient has renal impairment.

Are there reversal agents for DOACs?

In October 2015, the FDA approved idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody fragment that binds dabigatran with much greater affinity than thrombin, thus quickly reversing the effect of the direct thrombin inhibitor. FDA approval came in response to an interim analysis of an ongoing open-label trial, RE-VERSE AD.11 This study enrolled 90 adults with major bleeding or need for an emergency procedure taking dabigatran to receive idarucizumab (2.5 g in 50 mL rapid infusion dose given twice less than 15 minutes apart for a total of 5 g). Idarucizumab immediately reversed the effect of dabigatran on clotting tests in 88%-98% of the patients. For patients with major bleeding, the median time for bleeding cessation was 11.4 hours. One thrombotic event was reported within 72 hours of drug administration. Therefore, in patients taking dabigatran with an elevated TT, idarucizumab may be used if the bleeding is life threatening and refractory to initial supportive measures.

 

 

There are no FDA-approved antidotes for the factor Xa inhibitors. One promising agent is andexanet-alfa, an inactivated form of factor Xa that irreversibly binds Xa inhibitors. The ongoing, open-label ANNEXA-4 trial12 reported a decrease in anti–factor Xa activity of ~90% after bolus administration of the drug followed by 2-hour infusion in 67 patients with life-threatening bleeding, with clinical hemostasis achieved in 79% in patients by 12 hours. However, thrombotic events occurred in 18% of the patients at 1 month. Additional safety and efficacy data, along with plans for postmarket surveillance, will be needed prior to approval for clinical use.
 

Are there other options to obtain hemostasis?

Clotting factor products, specifically fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs), are often used to attempt to reverse anticoagulation from DOACs. While FFP alone has no evidence to support its use in reversing the effect of DOACs, PCCs might reverse anticoagulation for both Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors.13 Some experts recommend unactivated PCC over activated PCC because of a theoretically increased thrombotic risk of activated PCC.14 For patients taking Xa inhibitors or dabigatran (if idarucizumab is unavailable) with life-threatening bleeding, PCC should be used in an attempt to reverse the bleeding.

Another strategy to promote hemostasis in bleeding patients taking DOACs is to use antifibrinolytics. Effective for control of bleeding in trauma and surgical patients, tranexamic acid has not been widely studied in nonsurgical bleeding, much less DOAC-related nonsurgical bleeding. A 2014 Cochrane review of a small number of trials suggested a possible mortality benefit from its use in upper GI bleeding, but the quality of included trials was poor.15 The ongoing HALT-IT trial, enrolling 8,000 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, aims to clarify the mortality benefit of tranexamic acid.16 Despite effectively promoting hemostasis in many populations of bleeding patients, tranexamic acid carries no discernible thrombotic risk.17,18 By preventing clot degradation through a downstream mechanism at low cost and risk, antifibrinolytics are a practical adjunctive therapy to control major bleeding in patients on DOACs.
 

Can charcoal or dialysis reduce the systemic concentration of DOACs?

In addition to discontinuing the DOAC, both charcoal and dialysis can reduce the systemic concentration of DOACs. If the ingestion was recent, oral activated charcoal can reduce the systemic absorption of DOACs. To date there are no data on the efficacy of charcoal in bleeding patients taking DOACs. However, in two recent trials, administration of a single dose of charcoal in healthy patients led to significantly decreased area under concentration-time curves (AUC) when given at 6 and 8 hours after ingestion of a therapeutic dose of apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively.19,20 While further studies are needed to confirm its clinical benefit, charcoal is recommended for major bleeding when given within 2 hours of ingestion of a DOAC and may be useful within 8 hours.

Unlike charcoal, which can be used for patients on Xa inhibitors or dabigatran, hemodialysis is only effective for reducing serum concentrations of dabigatran because of its low plasma protein binding (~35%). A review of 35 patients (10 with normal renal function) with severe bleeding showed significant reductions in coagulation tests (aPTT, PT, TT) and dabigatran levels after hemodialysis.21 For severe bleeding episodes particularly in patients with impaired renal function, providers should consider the use of continuous renal replacement therapy until clinical hemostasis is achieved.
 

What is the expert’s opinion?

We asked one of our hematologists with expertise in DOACs for his opinion on this topic. Most patients with DOAC-associated bleeding can be managed with supportive care because of the short half-life of these agents in patients with reasonably preserved renal function. The main scenario for escalating therapy to PCC or idarucizumab is life-threatening bleeding, such as intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal hemorrhage with hemodynamic instability. The threshold for use of idarucizumab for patients taking dabigatran with bleeding should be lower than PCCs because there is better evidence for clinical benefit with less risk.

Developing reversal agents continues to be costly, requiring extensive preclinical work and clinical trials that are difficult to do. Assuming that reversal agents become more affordable in the longer term, and safety profiles are better established, clinicians may eventually have a lower threshold for their use in a wider variety of bleeding episodes. Lastly, adverse outcomes often occur, not during the acute bleeding episode, but several weeks later in patients whose providers delay restarting anticoagulation. Thus, it is important to resume anticoagulant therapy as soon as it is safe to do so.
 

Back to the case

Our patient was given a 50-g suspension of oral activated charcoal, along with two doses of 1 g intravenous tranexamic acid 8 hours apart. He was typed and crossed for blood, and ultimately received 1 unit of packed red blood cells before stabilizing without other measures. His colonoscopy subsequently revealed a diverticular bleed with a visible vessel that was coagulated. He was discharged 2 days later after remaining clinically stable after colonoscopy.

 

 

Bottom line

For the majority of bleeding patients on DOACs, supportive care with transfusions and local hemostatic interventions to control bleeding will likely be sufficient. Because of the short half-lives of DOACs, most patients do not require additional therapy (Table 2), and these patients actually have better outcomes from major bleeding episodes than patients taking VKAs. Antifibrinolytics should be a first-line prohemostatic therapy in major bleeding. Oral activated charcoal may be effective within 2-8 hours after ingestion for reduction of serum DOAC concentrations. Finally, in cases of life-threatening bleeding, idarucizumab can be used to reverse anticoagulation for patients taking dabigatran. When idarucizumab is unavailable, or for patients taking Xa inhibitors, PCC can be used.

Dr. Hagan is chief medical resident at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. Dr. Albert is clinical instructor of medicine at UWMC. Dr. Garcia is professor of medicine and associate medical director of antithrombotic therapy at UWMC. Dr. Huang is an attending with the UWMC Medicine Consult Service and assistant clinical professor in the division of general internal medicine at UW.

Key Points

• The risk of major bleeding, and the case fatality rate of major bleeding, is significantly lower in patients taking DOACs versus VKAs

• For the majority of patients with bleeding on DOACs, withholding anticoagulation and supportive care is sufficient

• Idarucizumab is a novel and effective antidote to dabigatran, but should be reserved for patients with life-threatening bleeding

• Patients with DOAC-associated bleeding should be restarted on anticoagulation as soon as it is safe to do so



Additional Reading

Management of bleeding in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. UpToDate 2016.

How do I treat target-specific oral anticoagulant-associated bleeding? Blood 2014.

References

1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-52.

2. Chai-adisaksopha C, Crowther M, Isayama T, Lim W. The impact of bleeding complications in patients receiving target-specific oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood. 2014;124(15):2450-8.

3. Chai-adisaksopha C, Hillis C, Isayama T, Lim W, Iorio A, Crowther M. Mortality outcomes in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(11):2012-20.

4. Savaysa (edoxaban) [package insert]. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc, Tokyo, Japan; 2015. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2015/206316lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

5. Xarelto (rivaroxaban) [package insert]. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Titusville, NJ; 2011. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/202439s001lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

6. Pradaxa (dabigatran) [package insert]. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ridgefield, CT; 2011. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022512s007lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

7. Eliquis (apixaban) [package insert]. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ; 2012. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/202155s000lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

8. Scaglione F. New oral anticoagulants: comparative pharmacology with vitamin K antagonists. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(2):69-82.

9. Tripodi A. The laboratory and the direct oral anticoagulants. Blood.

2013;121(20):4032-5.

10. Samuelson BT, Cuker A, Siegal DM, Crowther M, Garcia DA. Laboratory Assessment of the Anticoagulant Activity of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs): A Systematic Review. Chest. 2016;

11. Pollack CV, Reilly PA, Eikelboom J, et al. Idarucizumab for Dabigatran Reversal. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):511-20.

12. Connolly SJ, Milling TJ, Eikelboom JW, et al. Andexanet Alfa for Acute Major Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2016.

13. Dickneite G, Hoffman M. Reversing the new oral anticoagulants with prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs): what is the evidence?. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(2):189-98.

14. Sørensen B, Spahn DR, Innerhofer P, Spannagl M, Rossaint R. Clinical review: Prothrombin complex concentrates--evaluation of safety and thrombogenicity. Crit Care. 2011;15(1):201.

15. Bennett C, Klingenberg S, Langholz E, Gluud L. Tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD006640.

16. Roberts I, Coats T, Edwards P, et al. HALT-IT – tranexamic acid for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014 Nov 19;15:450.

17. Dyba J, Chan F, Lau K, Chan A, Chan H. Tranexamic Acid is a Weak Provoking Factor for Thromboembolic Events: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Blood. 2013; 122(21): 3629.

18. Myles PS, Smith JA, Forbes A, et al. Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Coronary-Artery Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016; 376(2):136-148.

19. Wang X, Mondal S, Wang J, et al. Effect of Activated Charcoal on Apixaban Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Subjects. American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs. 2014;14(2):147-154.

20. Ollier E, Hodin S, Lanoiselée J, et al. Effect of Activated Charcoal on Rivaroxaban Complex Absorption. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016 Dec 2.

21. Chai-adisaksopha C, Hillis C, Lim W, Boonyawat K, Moffat K, Crowther M. Hemodialysis for the treatment of dabigatran-associated bleeding: a case report and systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(10):1790-8.

22. Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(4):692-4.

23. UW Anticoagulation Services. UW Medicine Pharmacy Services Web site. 2014. Available at https://depts.washington.edu/anticoag, Accessed March 8, 2017.

 

________________________________________________________________________
 

Table 1: Pharmacologic Profiles of Xa and Direct Thrombin Inhibitors4-8, 23

tmax t1/2, CrCl 50-80 t1/2 CrCl < 30 Dialyzable?

Apixaban 3-4 h 15 h 17 h No

Dabigatran 1-3 h 17 h 28 h Yes

Edoxaban 1-2 h 10-14 h no data No

Rivaroxaban 2-4 h 9 h 10 h No



tmax = time to peak serum concentration after ingestion, t1/2= serum half-life, CrCl= creatinine clearance in mL/min

*Average values assuming normal hepatic function. Aside from dabigatran, which has minimal hepatic clearance, all other DOACs can have prolonged half-lives in hepatic impairment.
 

Table 2: Management of Bleeding Patients Taking DOACs

Direct Thrombin Inhibitors (dabigatran)

Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban)Minor Bleeding

• Withhold DOAC

• Local hemostatic measures

Major Bleeding*

All of the above, AND

• Antifibrinolytic if bleeding persists

• Restore physiologic perfusion

• Charcoal if last dose within 2-8 hours

• Transfusion indications:

o Red blood cells: anemia

o Platelets: antiplatelet agents or thrombocytopenia

o Plasma: coagulopathy (dilution, DIC, liver failure), not for DOAC reversal

Life-threatening Bleeding**

All of the above, AND:

• Idarucizumab (confirm anticoagulant effect with thrombin time first)

• If idarucizumab is unavailable, use PCC

• Consider hemodialysis until hemostasis achieved, especially if patient in renal failure

All of the above, AND:

• Unactivated PCC (if available and calibrated to specific Xa inhibitor, confirm anticoagulant effect with anti-Xa level)



* Adapted from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis: bleeding with a fall in hemoglobin level ≥ 2 g/dL, OR bleeding leading to ≥ 2 units of PRBC transfused.21 Clinicians should perform risk stratification of bleeding episodes using vital signs, laboratory results, the area of bleeding, and patient comorbidities.

**Uncontrolled bleeding, OR symptomatic bleeding in a critical area or organ (such as intracranial, intraocular, intraspinal, retroperitoneal, pericardial, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome).

 

Case

A 72-year-old man with a history of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension presents to the ER after an episode of hematochezia. He is prescribed dabigatran 150 mg twice daily for his AF and took his evening dose 2 hours prior to presentation. His initial exam reveals vital signs of BP 120/55, HR 105, RR 14 and bright red stool on rectal exam. His hemoglobin is 8.1 g/dL, down from 12.0 g/dL one month ago. He has normal renal function. How should you manage his gastrointestinal bleeding?

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) consist of two classes of drugs: oral factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) and direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran). They have gained substantial popularity since their commercial introduction in 2010, and are now Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in noncancer patients. DOAC use will likely increase given favorable safety profiles, reliable pharmacokinetics, and recent guidelines recommending their use over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for treatment of VTE in noncancer patients.1

A primary concern about the routine use of DOACs has been the lack of commercially available direct reversal agents. Unlike warfarin, which has an effective rapid antidote, no direct reversal agent is available for Xa inhibitors, and only recently has there been FDA approval for idarucizumab, a direct thrombin inhibitor reversal drug. Therefore, clinicians are often left wondering how to manage bleeding episodes in patients receiving DOACs.
 

Literature review

What is the risk of bleeding for patients taking DOACs?

DOACs carry a low but significant risk of bleeding, including life-threatening bleeding. There is now robust data from over 100,000 patients in randomized clinical trials of nonvalvular AF and VTE comparing the risk of major and fatal bleeding between DOACs and VKAs.2 These trials reveal an annual major bleeding rate of 2%-4% in patients with AF and 1%-2% in patients with VTE taking DOACs.

Importantly, DOACs were found to carry a statistically lower risk of major and fatal bleeding than VKAs. Patients taking DOACs have a relative risk of major bleeding of 0.72, compared with VKAs, and a RR of fatal bleeding of 0.53. Additionally, the case fatality rate for major bleeding episodes was 7.6% for DOACs versus 11.0% for warfarin, despite not having an available antidote for DOACs in these trials.3 Although there is an increased risk of bleeding from DOACs, the rates of major bleeding and of serious complications from bleeding are lower than with warfarin.
 

How long does the effect of a DOAC last?

A significant advantage of DOACs over VKAs in the setting of bleeding is their shorter half-lives, which range from a low estimate of 5 hours for rivaroxaban to a high estimate of 17 hours for dabigatran4-8 (Table 1). Given that it takes 4-5 half-lives for a drug to be functionally eliminated, coagulation typically normalizes in patients taking DOACs within 1-3 days, compared with 3-5 days for warfarin. All DOACs have significant renal clearance, and renal failure will prolong the duration of anticoagulation. For patients who are taking DOACs and present with bleeding, it is important to assess their renal function.

Are coagulation tests helpful when assessing the effect of DOACs?

Prothrombin time (PT/INR) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) should be measured in all patients presenting with significant bleeding, whether or not the patient is taking a DOAC. PT and aPTT are commonly elevated for patients taking direct thrombin inhibitors and Xa inhibitors. Although a prolonged PT and/or aPTT can be useful in determining if the anticoagulant effect from DOACs is still present, normal values of these tests do not rule out an anticoagulant effect in patients taking DOACs.9,10 Thrombin Time (TT) is a widely available test with quick results, and a normal value rules out the therapeutic effect of dabigatran. Finally, the anti–factor Xa assay is a sensitive test for Xa inhibitors, but requires calibration to the DOAC of interest in order to be reliable. Clinicians should consult with their institution’s laboratory prior to using an anti–factor Xa level to test the anticoagulant effect of a specific DOAC. Repeat coagulation testing may be useful in some clinical circumstances, especially if a patient has renal impairment.

Are there reversal agents for DOACs?

In October 2015, the FDA approved idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody fragment that binds dabigatran with much greater affinity than thrombin, thus quickly reversing the effect of the direct thrombin inhibitor. FDA approval came in response to an interim analysis of an ongoing open-label trial, RE-VERSE AD.11 This study enrolled 90 adults with major bleeding or need for an emergency procedure taking dabigatran to receive idarucizumab (2.5 g in 50 mL rapid infusion dose given twice less than 15 minutes apart for a total of 5 g). Idarucizumab immediately reversed the effect of dabigatran on clotting tests in 88%-98% of the patients. For patients with major bleeding, the median time for bleeding cessation was 11.4 hours. One thrombotic event was reported within 72 hours of drug administration. Therefore, in patients taking dabigatran with an elevated TT, idarucizumab may be used if the bleeding is life threatening and refractory to initial supportive measures.

 

 

There are no FDA-approved antidotes for the factor Xa inhibitors. One promising agent is andexanet-alfa, an inactivated form of factor Xa that irreversibly binds Xa inhibitors. The ongoing, open-label ANNEXA-4 trial12 reported a decrease in anti–factor Xa activity of ~90% after bolus administration of the drug followed by 2-hour infusion in 67 patients with life-threatening bleeding, with clinical hemostasis achieved in 79% in patients by 12 hours. However, thrombotic events occurred in 18% of the patients at 1 month. Additional safety and efficacy data, along with plans for postmarket surveillance, will be needed prior to approval for clinical use.
 

Are there other options to obtain hemostasis?

Clotting factor products, specifically fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs), are often used to attempt to reverse anticoagulation from DOACs. While FFP alone has no evidence to support its use in reversing the effect of DOACs, PCCs might reverse anticoagulation for both Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors.13 Some experts recommend unactivated PCC over activated PCC because of a theoretically increased thrombotic risk of activated PCC.14 For patients taking Xa inhibitors or dabigatran (if idarucizumab is unavailable) with life-threatening bleeding, PCC should be used in an attempt to reverse the bleeding.

Another strategy to promote hemostasis in bleeding patients taking DOACs is to use antifibrinolytics. Effective for control of bleeding in trauma and surgical patients, tranexamic acid has not been widely studied in nonsurgical bleeding, much less DOAC-related nonsurgical bleeding. A 2014 Cochrane review of a small number of trials suggested a possible mortality benefit from its use in upper GI bleeding, but the quality of included trials was poor.15 The ongoing HALT-IT trial, enrolling 8,000 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, aims to clarify the mortality benefit of tranexamic acid.16 Despite effectively promoting hemostasis in many populations of bleeding patients, tranexamic acid carries no discernible thrombotic risk.17,18 By preventing clot degradation through a downstream mechanism at low cost and risk, antifibrinolytics are a practical adjunctive therapy to control major bleeding in patients on DOACs.
 

Can charcoal or dialysis reduce the systemic concentration of DOACs?

In addition to discontinuing the DOAC, both charcoal and dialysis can reduce the systemic concentration of DOACs. If the ingestion was recent, oral activated charcoal can reduce the systemic absorption of DOACs. To date there are no data on the efficacy of charcoal in bleeding patients taking DOACs. However, in two recent trials, administration of a single dose of charcoal in healthy patients led to significantly decreased area under concentration-time curves (AUC) when given at 6 and 8 hours after ingestion of a therapeutic dose of apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively.19,20 While further studies are needed to confirm its clinical benefit, charcoal is recommended for major bleeding when given within 2 hours of ingestion of a DOAC and may be useful within 8 hours.

Unlike charcoal, which can be used for patients on Xa inhibitors or dabigatran, hemodialysis is only effective for reducing serum concentrations of dabigatran because of its low plasma protein binding (~35%). A review of 35 patients (10 with normal renal function) with severe bleeding showed significant reductions in coagulation tests (aPTT, PT, TT) and dabigatran levels after hemodialysis.21 For severe bleeding episodes particularly in patients with impaired renal function, providers should consider the use of continuous renal replacement therapy until clinical hemostasis is achieved.
 

What is the expert’s opinion?

We asked one of our hematologists with expertise in DOACs for his opinion on this topic. Most patients with DOAC-associated bleeding can be managed with supportive care because of the short half-life of these agents in patients with reasonably preserved renal function. The main scenario for escalating therapy to PCC or idarucizumab is life-threatening bleeding, such as intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal hemorrhage with hemodynamic instability. The threshold for use of idarucizumab for patients taking dabigatran with bleeding should be lower than PCCs because there is better evidence for clinical benefit with less risk.

Developing reversal agents continues to be costly, requiring extensive preclinical work and clinical trials that are difficult to do. Assuming that reversal agents become more affordable in the longer term, and safety profiles are better established, clinicians may eventually have a lower threshold for their use in a wider variety of bleeding episodes. Lastly, adverse outcomes often occur, not during the acute bleeding episode, but several weeks later in patients whose providers delay restarting anticoagulation. Thus, it is important to resume anticoagulant therapy as soon as it is safe to do so.
 

Back to the case

Our patient was given a 50-g suspension of oral activated charcoal, along with two doses of 1 g intravenous tranexamic acid 8 hours apart. He was typed and crossed for blood, and ultimately received 1 unit of packed red blood cells before stabilizing without other measures. His colonoscopy subsequently revealed a diverticular bleed with a visible vessel that was coagulated. He was discharged 2 days later after remaining clinically stable after colonoscopy.

 

 

Bottom line

For the majority of bleeding patients on DOACs, supportive care with transfusions and local hemostatic interventions to control bleeding will likely be sufficient. Because of the short half-lives of DOACs, most patients do not require additional therapy (Table 2), and these patients actually have better outcomes from major bleeding episodes than patients taking VKAs. Antifibrinolytics should be a first-line prohemostatic therapy in major bleeding. Oral activated charcoal may be effective within 2-8 hours after ingestion for reduction of serum DOAC concentrations. Finally, in cases of life-threatening bleeding, idarucizumab can be used to reverse anticoagulation for patients taking dabigatran. When idarucizumab is unavailable, or for patients taking Xa inhibitors, PCC can be used.

Dr. Hagan is chief medical resident at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. Dr. Albert is clinical instructor of medicine at UWMC. Dr. Garcia is professor of medicine and associate medical director of antithrombotic therapy at UWMC. Dr. Huang is an attending with the UWMC Medicine Consult Service and assistant clinical professor in the division of general internal medicine at UW.

Key Points

• The risk of major bleeding, and the case fatality rate of major bleeding, is significantly lower in patients taking DOACs versus VKAs

• For the majority of patients with bleeding on DOACs, withholding anticoagulation and supportive care is sufficient

• Idarucizumab is a novel and effective antidote to dabigatran, but should be reserved for patients with life-threatening bleeding

• Patients with DOAC-associated bleeding should be restarted on anticoagulation as soon as it is safe to do so



Additional Reading

Management of bleeding in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. UpToDate 2016.

How do I treat target-specific oral anticoagulant-associated bleeding? Blood 2014.

References

1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-52.

2. Chai-adisaksopha C, Crowther M, Isayama T, Lim W. The impact of bleeding complications in patients receiving target-specific oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood. 2014;124(15):2450-8.

3. Chai-adisaksopha C, Hillis C, Isayama T, Lim W, Iorio A, Crowther M. Mortality outcomes in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(11):2012-20.

4. Savaysa (edoxaban) [package insert]. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc, Tokyo, Japan; 2015. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2015/206316lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

5. Xarelto (rivaroxaban) [package insert]. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Titusville, NJ; 2011. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/202439s001lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

6. Pradaxa (dabigatran) [package insert]. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ridgefield, CT; 2011. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022512s007lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

7. Eliquis (apixaban) [package insert]. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ; 2012. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/202155s000lbl.pdf. Accessed January 8th, 2016.

8. Scaglione F. New oral anticoagulants: comparative pharmacology with vitamin K antagonists. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(2):69-82.

9. Tripodi A. The laboratory and the direct oral anticoagulants. Blood.

2013;121(20):4032-5.

10. Samuelson BT, Cuker A, Siegal DM, Crowther M, Garcia DA. Laboratory Assessment of the Anticoagulant Activity of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs): A Systematic Review. Chest. 2016;

11. Pollack CV, Reilly PA, Eikelboom J, et al. Idarucizumab for Dabigatran Reversal. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):511-20.

12. Connolly SJ, Milling TJ, Eikelboom JW, et al. Andexanet Alfa for Acute Major Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2016.

13. Dickneite G, Hoffman M. Reversing the new oral anticoagulants with prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs): what is the evidence?. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(2):189-98.

14. Sørensen B, Spahn DR, Innerhofer P, Spannagl M, Rossaint R. Clinical review: Prothrombin complex concentrates--evaluation of safety and thrombogenicity. Crit Care. 2011;15(1):201.

15. Bennett C, Klingenberg S, Langholz E, Gluud L. Tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD006640.

16. Roberts I, Coats T, Edwards P, et al. HALT-IT – tranexamic acid for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014 Nov 19;15:450.

17. Dyba J, Chan F, Lau K, Chan A, Chan H. Tranexamic Acid is a Weak Provoking Factor for Thromboembolic Events: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Blood. 2013; 122(21): 3629.

18. Myles PS, Smith JA, Forbes A, et al. Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Coronary-Artery Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016; 376(2):136-148.

19. Wang X, Mondal S, Wang J, et al. Effect of Activated Charcoal on Apixaban Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Subjects. American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs. 2014;14(2):147-154.

20. Ollier E, Hodin S, Lanoiselée J, et al. Effect of Activated Charcoal on Rivaroxaban Complex Absorption. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016 Dec 2.

21. Chai-adisaksopha C, Hillis C, Lim W, Boonyawat K, Moffat K, Crowther M. Hemodialysis for the treatment of dabigatran-associated bleeding: a case report and systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(10):1790-8.

22. Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(4):692-4.

23. UW Anticoagulation Services. UW Medicine Pharmacy Services Web site. 2014. Available at https://depts.washington.edu/anticoag, Accessed March 8, 2017.

 

________________________________________________________________________
 

Table 1: Pharmacologic Profiles of Xa and Direct Thrombin Inhibitors4-8, 23

tmax t1/2, CrCl 50-80 t1/2 CrCl < 30 Dialyzable?

Apixaban 3-4 h 15 h 17 h No

Dabigatran 1-3 h 17 h 28 h Yes

Edoxaban 1-2 h 10-14 h no data No

Rivaroxaban 2-4 h 9 h 10 h No



tmax = time to peak serum concentration after ingestion, t1/2= serum half-life, CrCl= creatinine clearance in mL/min

*Average values assuming normal hepatic function. Aside from dabigatran, which has minimal hepatic clearance, all other DOACs can have prolonged half-lives in hepatic impairment.
 

Table 2: Management of Bleeding Patients Taking DOACs

Direct Thrombin Inhibitors (dabigatran)

Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban)Minor Bleeding

• Withhold DOAC

• Local hemostatic measures

Major Bleeding*

All of the above, AND

• Antifibrinolytic if bleeding persists

• Restore physiologic perfusion

• Charcoal if last dose within 2-8 hours

• Transfusion indications:

o Red blood cells: anemia

o Platelets: antiplatelet agents or thrombocytopenia

o Plasma: coagulopathy (dilution, DIC, liver failure), not for DOAC reversal

Life-threatening Bleeding**

All of the above, AND:

• Idarucizumab (confirm anticoagulant effect with thrombin time first)

• If idarucizumab is unavailable, use PCC

• Consider hemodialysis until hemostasis achieved, especially if patient in renal failure

All of the above, AND:

• Unactivated PCC (if available and calibrated to specific Xa inhibitor, confirm anticoagulant effect with anti-Xa level)



* Adapted from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis: bleeding with a fall in hemoglobin level ≥ 2 g/dL, OR bleeding leading to ≥ 2 units of PRBC transfused.21 Clinicians should perform risk stratification of bleeding episodes using vital signs, laboratory results, the area of bleeding, and patient comorbidities.

**Uncontrolled bleeding, OR symptomatic bleeding in a critical area or organ (such as intracranial, intraocular, intraspinal, retroperitoneal, pericardial, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome).

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Do not withhold opioid addiction drugs from patients taking benzodiazepines

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:02

 

The opioid addiction medications buprenorphine and methadone should not be withheld from patients who are taking benzodiazepines or other drugs that depress the central nervous system, the Food and Drug Administration advised in a safety alert posted Sept. 20.

The combined use of these medication-assisted treatment (MAT) drugs and central nervous system (CNS) depressants can lead to serious side effects. But the harm associated with opioid addiction that remains untreated usually outweighs those risks, the agency said. After reviewing this issue, the FDA said, it is requiring that this information be added to the drug labels of buprenorphine and methadone in addition to “recommendations for minimizing the use of [MAT] drugs and benzodiazepines together.”

The agency’s safety alert encouraged health professionals to develop a treatment plan for patients who are taking MAT drugs in combination with CNS depressants. The recommendations included educating patients about the risks of combined use of these drugs, “including overdose and death”; considering other treatment options for patients taking benzodiazepines for anxiety or insomnia; monitoring patients for illicit drug use, “including urine or blood screening”; communicating with other prescribers so that they know about patients’ buprenorphine or methadone treatment; and trying to taper the use of the benzodiazepine or CNS depressant to eventual discontinuation if possible.

Discontinuing MAT drugs is a goal, but patients might need medication-assisted treatment indefinitely. “Use should continue for as long as patients are benefiting and their use contributes to the intended treatment goals,” the alert said.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The opioid addiction medications buprenorphine and methadone should not be withheld from patients who are taking benzodiazepines or other drugs that depress the central nervous system, the Food and Drug Administration advised in a safety alert posted Sept. 20.

The combined use of these medication-assisted treatment (MAT) drugs and central nervous system (CNS) depressants can lead to serious side effects. But the harm associated with opioid addiction that remains untreated usually outweighs those risks, the agency said. After reviewing this issue, the FDA said, it is requiring that this information be added to the drug labels of buprenorphine and methadone in addition to “recommendations for minimizing the use of [MAT] drugs and benzodiazepines together.”

The agency’s safety alert encouraged health professionals to develop a treatment plan for patients who are taking MAT drugs in combination with CNS depressants. The recommendations included educating patients about the risks of combined use of these drugs, “including overdose and death”; considering other treatment options for patients taking benzodiazepines for anxiety or insomnia; monitoring patients for illicit drug use, “including urine or blood screening”; communicating with other prescribers so that they know about patients’ buprenorphine or methadone treatment; and trying to taper the use of the benzodiazepine or CNS depressant to eventual discontinuation if possible.

Discontinuing MAT drugs is a goal, but patients might need medication-assisted treatment indefinitely. “Use should continue for as long as patients are benefiting and their use contributes to the intended treatment goals,” the alert said.

 

The opioid addiction medications buprenorphine and methadone should not be withheld from patients who are taking benzodiazepines or other drugs that depress the central nervous system, the Food and Drug Administration advised in a safety alert posted Sept. 20.

The combined use of these medication-assisted treatment (MAT) drugs and central nervous system (CNS) depressants can lead to serious side effects. But the harm associated with opioid addiction that remains untreated usually outweighs those risks, the agency said. After reviewing this issue, the FDA said, it is requiring that this information be added to the drug labels of buprenorphine and methadone in addition to “recommendations for minimizing the use of [MAT] drugs and benzodiazepines together.”

The agency’s safety alert encouraged health professionals to develop a treatment plan for patients who are taking MAT drugs in combination with CNS depressants. The recommendations included educating patients about the risks of combined use of these drugs, “including overdose and death”; considering other treatment options for patients taking benzodiazepines for anxiety or insomnia; monitoring patients for illicit drug use, “including urine or blood screening”; communicating with other prescribers so that they know about patients’ buprenorphine or methadone treatment; and trying to taper the use of the benzodiazepine or CNS depressant to eventual discontinuation if possible.

Discontinuing MAT drugs is a goal, but patients might need medication-assisted treatment indefinitely. “Use should continue for as long as patients are benefiting and their use contributes to the intended treatment goals,” the alert said.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

While U.S. heart failure readmissions fall, deaths rise

Outpatient heart failure events supersede hospitalizations
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

 

– U.S. hospitals have recently shown a consistent and disturbing disconnect between reductions in their heart failure hospital readmission rates and heart failure mortality. Readmissions have dropped while mortality has risen.

“Despite reductions in 30-day heart failure readmissions in 89% of U.S. hospitals” during 2009-2016, “30-day heart failure mortality rates increased at 73%* of these ‘successful’ hospitals” during the same period,” Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz
“The most concerning question we can ask is whether inappropriate discharges from emergency rooms and observation units” is a driving factor behind the mortality rise despite a readmissions drop, said Dr. Abdul-Aziz, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

These shifts in the outcomes of U.S. patients hospitalized for acute heart failure episodes are tied to the penalties that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began slapping on hospitals in 2013 for excess 30-day readmissions for heart failure patients and in 2014 for excess mortality. A problem with these two CMS programs is that the penalty on inferior readmissions performance is a lot stiffer than for excess mortality, Dr. Aziz noted: a 0.2% penalty on payments for high mortality, compared with a 3% penalty for excess readmissions, a disparity that can make hospitals focus more on the readmissions side, he suggested.

Dr. Aziz’s report isn’t the first to make this observation. Study results published earlier in 2017 used CMS Medicare data from 2008 to 2014 to show that during that period, heart failure 30-day mortality rates following hospital discharge rose by 1.3%, while 30-day readmissions fell by 2.1% (JAMA. 2017 July 18;318[3]:270-8). On the basis of these numbers, as many as 5,200 additional deaths to U.S. heart failure patients in 2014 “may be related to the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program” of CMS, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said during a separate talk at the meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow
“CMS thinks that policy reform is the way to improve outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure. There was no evidence, no results from randomized trials, but they pushed it on the country. And it has reduced readmissions. But there have been unintended consequences of gaming the system, of keeping patients out of the hospital and giving them outpatient status, and these data raise concerns because 30-day mortality went up,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We should all be extremely concerned about the unintended consequences of payment reform strategies” that aim to improve the management of patients with heart failure.

The analysis reported by Dr. Aziz included data from 3,265 U.S. hospitals for heart failure patients, and data from 1,621 hospitals that managed patients with acute MIs, another disease that the CMS has targeted for penalties based on 30-day readmissions and 30-day postdischarge mortality rates. During the 8-year period studied, heart failure 30-day readmissions fell by 2.2% while 30-day mortality rose by 1%. In contrast, among acute MI patients, readmissions fell by 3% and mortality also fell, by 2.2%, Dr. Abdul-Aziz reported.

Dr. Abdul-Aziz had no disclosures. Dr. Fonarow had been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, St. Jude, and ZS Pharma.

Body

 

My colleagues and I have seen in results from recent trials a changing relationship between heart failure mortality and heart failure hospitalization. In the United States in particular, where penalties exist for high rates of hospital readmissions for heart failure, we are seeing more patients treated as outpatients and we see that these “outpatient” events are associated with the same risk for subsequent mortality as we had previously seen for heart failure hospitalization.

It may be that we are keeping patients out of the hospital to avoid a financial ding, but perhaps we are keeping out patients who really should be hospitalized.

What we have begun doing in trials is to look not just at hospitalizations but also consider the incidence of other heart failure events, such as patients treated for heart failure symptoms with an intravenous diuretic in the emergency department and patients who are kept in observation rooms and are not admitted. It’s not the same as a heart failure hospitalization, but some trials are now including these other heart failure events in their primary endpoint.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Scott D. Solomon

Scott D. Solomon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, made these comments as chair of the session where Dr. Aziz gave his report and in an interview. He has been a consultant to and/or received research support from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Body

 

My colleagues and I have seen in results from recent trials a changing relationship between heart failure mortality and heart failure hospitalization. In the United States in particular, where penalties exist for high rates of hospital readmissions for heart failure, we are seeing more patients treated as outpatients and we see that these “outpatient” events are associated with the same risk for subsequent mortality as we had previously seen for heart failure hospitalization.

It may be that we are keeping patients out of the hospital to avoid a financial ding, but perhaps we are keeping out patients who really should be hospitalized.

What we have begun doing in trials is to look not just at hospitalizations but also consider the incidence of other heart failure events, such as patients treated for heart failure symptoms with an intravenous diuretic in the emergency department and patients who are kept in observation rooms and are not admitted. It’s not the same as a heart failure hospitalization, but some trials are now including these other heart failure events in their primary endpoint.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Scott D. Solomon

Scott D. Solomon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, made these comments as chair of the session where Dr. Aziz gave his report and in an interview. He has been a consultant to and/or received research support from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi.

Body

 

My colleagues and I have seen in results from recent trials a changing relationship between heart failure mortality and heart failure hospitalization. In the United States in particular, where penalties exist for high rates of hospital readmissions for heart failure, we are seeing more patients treated as outpatients and we see that these “outpatient” events are associated with the same risk for subsequent mortality as we had previously seen for heart failure hospitalization.

It may be that we are keeping patients out of the hospital to avoid a financial ding, but perhaps we are keeping out patients who really should be hospitalized.

What we have begun doing in trials is to look not just at hospitalizations but also consider the incidence of other heart failure events, such as patients treated for heart failure symptoms with an intravenous diuretic in the emergency department and patients who are kept in observation rooms and are not admitted. It’s not the same as a heart failure hospitalization, but some trials are now including these other heart failure events in their primary endpoint.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Scott D. Solomon

Scott D. Solomon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, made these comments as chair of the session where Dr. Aziz gave his report and in an interview. He has been a consultant to and/or received research support from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi.

Title
Outpatient heart failure events supersede hospitalizations
Outpatient heart failure events supersede hospitalizations

 

– U.S. hospitals have recently shown a consistent and disturbing disconnect between reductions in their heart failure hospital readmission rates and heart failure mortality. Readmissions have dropped while mortality has risen.

“Despite reductions in 30-day heart failure readmissions in 89% of U.S. hospitals” during 2009-2016, “30-day heart failure mortality rates increased at 73%* of these ‘successful’ hospitals” during the same period,” Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz
“The most concerning question we can ask is whether inappropriate discharges from emergency rooms and observation units” is a driving factor behind the mortality rise despite a readmissions drop, said Dr. Abdul-Aziz, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

These shifts in the outcomes of U.S. patients hospitalized for acute heart failure episodes are tied to the penalties that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began slapping on hospitals in 2013 for excess 30-day readmissions for heart failure patients and in 2014 for excess mortality. A problem with these two CMS programs is that the penalty on inferior readmissions performance is a lot stiffer than for excess mortality, Dr. Aziz noted: a 0.2% penalty on payments for high mortality, compared with a 3% penalty for excess readmissions, a disparity that can make hospitals focus more on the readmissions side, he suggested.

Dr. Aziz’s report isn’t the first to make this observation. Study results published earlier in 2017 used CMS Medicare data from 2008 to 2014 to show that during that period, heart failure 30-day mortality rates following hospital discharge rose by 1.3%, while 30-day readmissions fell by 2.1% (JAMA. 2017 July 18;318[3]:270-8). On the basis of these numbers, as many as 5,200 additional deaths to U.S. heart failure patients in 2014 “may be related to the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program” of CMS, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said during a separate talk at the meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow
“CMS thinks that policy reform is the way to improve outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure. There was no evidence, no results from randomized trials, but they pushed it on the country. And it has reduced readmissions. But there have been unintended consequences of gaming the system, of keeping patients out of the hospital and giving them outpatient status, and these data raise concerns because 30-day mortality went up,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We should all be extremely concerned about the unintended consequences of payment reform strategies” that aim to improve the management of patients with heart failure.

The analysis reported by Dr. Aziz included data from 3,265 U.S. hospitals for heart failure patients, and data from 1,621 hospitals that managed patients with acute MIs, another disease that the CMS has targeted for penalties based on 30-day readmissions and 30-day postdischarge mortality rates. During the 8-year period studied, heart failure 30-day readmissions fell by 2.2% while 30-day mortality rose by 1%. In contrast, among acute MI patients, readmissions fell by 3% and mortality also fell, by 2.2%, Dr. Abdul-Aziz reported.

Dr. Abdul-Aziz had no disclosures. Dr. Fonarow had been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, St. Jude, and ZS Pharma.

 

– U.S. hospitals have recently shown a consistent and disturbing disconnect between reductions in their heart failure hospital readmission rates and heart failure mortality. Readmissions have dropped while mortality has risen.

“Despite reductions in 30-day heart failure readmissions in 89% of U.S. hospitals” during 2009-2016, “30-day heart failure mortality rates increased at 73%* of these ‘successful’ hospitals” during the same period,” Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz
“The most concerning question we can ask is whether inappropriate discharges from emergency rooms and observation units” is a driving factor behind the mortality rise despite a readmissions drop, said Dr. Abdul-Aziz, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

These shifts in the outcomes of U.S. patients hospitalized for acute heart failure episodes are tied to the penalties that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began slapping on hospitals in 2013 for excess 30-day readmissions for heart failure patients and in 2014 for excess mortality. A problem with these two CMS programs is that the penalty on inferior readmissions performance is a lot stiffer than for excess mortality, Dr. Aziz noted: a 0.2% penalty on payments for high mortality, compared with a 3% penalty for excess readmissions, a disparity that can make hospitals focus more on the readmissions side, he suggested.

Dr. Aziz’s report isn’t the first to make this observation. Study results published earlier in 2017 used CMS Medicare data from 2008 to 2014 to show that during that period, heart failure 30-day mortality rates following hospital discharge rose by 1.3%, while 30-day readmissions fell by 2.1% (JAMA. 2017 July 18;318[3]:270-8). On the basis of these numbers, as many as 5,200 additional deaths to U.S. heart failure patients in 2014 “may be related to the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program” of CMS, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said during a separate talk at the meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow
“CMS thinks that policy reform is the way to improve outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure. There was no evidence, no results from randomized trials, but they pushed it on the country. And it has reduced readmissions. But there have been unintended consequences of gaming the system, of keeping patients out of the hospital and giving them outpatient status, and these data raise concerns because 30-day mortality went up,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We should all be extremely concerned about the unintended consequences of payment reform strategies” that aim to improve the management of patients with heart failure.

The analysis reported by Dr. Aziz included data from 3,265 U.S. hospitals for heart failure patients, and data from 1,621 hospitals that managed patients with acute MIs, another disease that the CMS has targeted for penalties based on 30-day readmissions and 30-day postdischarge mortality rates. During the 8-year period studied, heart failure 30-day readmissions fell by 2.2% while 30-day mortality rose by 1%. In contrast, among acute MI patients, readmissions fell by 3% and mortality also fell, by 2.2%, Dr. Abdul-Aziz reported.

Dr. Abdul-Aziz had no disclosures. Dr. Fonarow had been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, St. Jude, and ZS Pharma.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

AT THE HFSA ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Concurrently with recent Medicare penalties for heart failure hospital readmissions, U.S. readmission rates dropped but heart failure mortality increased.

Major finding: From 2009 to 2016, U.S. 30-day heart failure readmissions fell by 2.2% while 30-day heart failure mortality rose by 1%.

Data source: Review of Medicare data for 3,265 U.S. hospitals managing heart failure patients.

Disclosures: Dr. Abdul-Aziz had no disclosures. Dr. Fonarow had been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, St. Jude, and ZS Pharma.

Disqus Comments
Default

Sneak Peek: Journal of Hospital Medicine – Sept. 2017

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 11:57
A randomized controlled trial of a CPR decision support video for patients admitted to the general medicine service

 

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are important, especially during hospitalization when a patient’s health is changing, yet many patients are not adequately informed or involved in the decision-making process.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of an informational video about CPR on hospitalized patients’ code status choices.

DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized trial conducted at the Veteran’s Affairs Hospital in Minneapolis.

PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 119 patients who were hospitalized on the general medicine service and at least 65 years old. The majority were men (97%) with a mean age of 75.

INTERVENTION: A video described code status choices: full code (CPR and intubation if required), do not resuscitate (DNR), and do not resuscitate/do not intubate (DNR/DNI). Participants were randomized to watch the video (n = 59) or usual care (n = 60).

MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was participants’ code status preferences. Secondary outcomes included a questionnaire designed to evaluate participants’ trust in their health care team and their knowledge and perceptions about CPR.

RESULTS: Participants who viewed the video were less likely to choose full code (37%), compared with participants in the usual-care group (71%), and were more likely to choose DNR/DNI (56% in the video group vs. 17% in the control group) (P < .00001). We did not see a difference in trust in their health care team or knowledge and perceptions about CPR as assessed by our questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients who watched a video about CPR and code status choices were less likely to choose full code and more likely to choose DNR/DNI.
 

Also in JHM this month

Influenza season hospitalization trends in Israel: A multi-year comparative analysis 2005/2006 through 2012/2013

AUTHORS: Aharona Glatman-Freedman, MD, MPH, Zalman Kaufman, MS, Yaniv Stein, BS, Hanna Sefty, MS, Hila Zadka, PhD, Barak Gordon, MD, MHA, Jill Meron, BSc, Ethel-Sherry Gordon, PhD, Rita Dichtiar, BSc, Ziona Haklai, MSc, Arnon Afek, MD, Tamy Shohat, MD, MPH



Appropriate reconciliation of cardiovascular medications after elective surgery and postdischarge acute hospital and ambulatory visits

AUTHORS: Jonathan S. Lee, MD, Ralph Gonzales, MD, MSPH, Eric Vittinghoff, PhD, Kitty K. Corbett, PhD, MPH, Kirsten E. Fleischmann, MD, Neil Sehgal, MD, MPH, Andrew D. Auerbach, MD, MPH



Patterns and appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in an academic medical center

AUTHORS: Nicholas Cox, PharmD, Stacy A. Johnson, MD, Sara Vazquez, PharmD, Ryan P. Fleming, PharmD, BCPS, Matthew T. Rondina, MD, David Kaplan, MD, Stephanie Chauv, PharmD, Gabriel V. Fontaine, PharmD, Scott M. Stevens, MD, Scott Woller, MD, Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, BCPS, FCCP



National trends (2007-2013) of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with septic shock: Impact on outcome

AUTHORS: Kshitij Chatterjee, MD, Abhinav Goyal, MD, Aditya Chada, MD, Krishna Siva Sai Kakkera, MD, Howard L Corwin, MD



Blood products provided to patients receiving inappropriate critical care

AUTHORS: Thanh H. Neville, MD, MSHS, Alyssa Ziman, MD, Neil S. Wenger, MD, MPH

Publications
Topics
Sections
A randomized controlled trial of a CPR decision support video for patients admitted to the general medicine service
A randomized controlled trial of a CPR decision support video for patients admitted to the general medicine service

 

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are important, especially during hospitalization when a patient’s health is changing, yet many patients are not adequately informed or involved in the decision-making process.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of an informational video about CPR on hospitalized patients’ code status choices.

DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized trial conducted at the Veteran’s Affairs Hospital in Minneapolis.

PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 119 patients who were hospitalized on the general medicine service and at least 65 years old. The majority were men (97%) with a mean age of 75.

INTERVENTION: A video described code status choices: full code (CPR and intubation if required), do not resuscitate (DNR), and do not resuscitate/do not intubate (DNR/DNI). Participants were randomized to watch the video (n = 59) or usual care (n = 60).

MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was participants’ code status preferences. Secondary outcomes included a questionnaire designed to evaluate participants’ trust in their health care team and their knowledge and perceptions about CPR.

RESULTS: Participants who viewed the video were less likely to choose full code (37%), compared with participants in the usual-care group (71%), and were more likely to choose DNR/DNI (56% in the video group vs. 17% in the control group) (P < .00001). We did not see a difference in trust in their health care team or knowledge and perceptions about CPR as assessed by our questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients who watched a video about CPR and code status choices were less likely to choose full code and more likely to choose DNR/DNI.
 

Also in JHM this month

Influenza season hospitalization trends in Israel: A multi-year comparative analysis 2005/2006 through 2012/2013

AUTHORS: Aharona Glatman-Freedman, MD, MPH, Zalman Kaufman, MS, Yaniv Stein, BS, Hanna Sefty, MS, Hila Zadka, PhD, Barak Gordon, MD, MHA, Jill Meron, BSc, Ethel-Sherry Gordon, PhD, Rita Dichtiar, BSc, Ziona Haklai, MSc, Arnon Afek, MD, Tamy Shohat, MD, MPH



Appropriate reconciliation of cardiovascular medications after elective surgery and postdischarge acute hospital and ambulatory visits

AUTHORS: Jonathan S. Lee, MD, Ralph Gonzales, MD, MSPH, Eric Vittinghoff, PhD, Kitty K. Corbett, PhD, MPH, Kirsten E. Fleischmann, MD, Neil Sehgal, MD, MPH, Andrew D. Auerbach, MD, MPH



Patterns and appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in an academic medical center

AUTHORS: Nicholas Cox, PharmD, Stacy A. Johnson, MD, Sara Vazquez, PharmD, Ryan P. Fleming, PharmD, BCPS, Matthew T. Rondina, MD, David Kaplan, MD, Stephanie Chauv, PharmD, Gabriel V. Fontaine, PharmD, Scott M. Stevens, MD, Scott Woller, MD, Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, BCPS, FCCP



National trends (2007-2013) of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with septic shock: Impact on outcome

AUTHORS: Kshitij Chatterjee, MD, Abhinav Goyal, MD, Aditya Chada, MD, Krishna Siva Sai Kakkera, MD, Howard L Corwin, MD



Blood products provided to patients receiving inappropriate critical care

AUTHORS: Thanh H. Neville, MD, MSHS, Alyssa Ziman, MD, Neil S. Wenger, MD, MPH

 

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are important, especially during hospitalization when a patient’s health is changing, yet many patients are not adequately informed or involved in the decision-making process.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of an informational video about CPR on hospitalized patients’ code status choices.

DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized trial conducted at the Veteran’s Affairs Hospital in Minneapolis.

PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 119 patients who were hospitalized on the general medicine service and at least 65 years old. The majority were men (97%) with a mean age of 75.

INTERVENTION: A video described code status choices: full code (CPR and intubation if required), do not resuscitate (DNR), and do not resuscitate/do not intubate (DNR/DNI). Participants were randomized to watch the video (n = 59) or usual care (n = 60).

MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was participants’ code status preferences. Secondary outcomes included a questionnaire designed to evaluate participants’ trust in their health care team and their knowledge and perceptions about CPR.

RESULTS: Participants who viewed the video were less likely to choose full code (37%), compared with participants in the usual-care group (71%), and were more likely to choose DNR/DNI (56% in the video group vs. 17% in the control group) (P < .00001). We did not see a difference in trust in their health care team or knowledge and perceptions about CPR as assessed by our questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients who watched a video about CPR and code status choices were less likely to choose full code and more likely to choose DNR/DNI.
 

Also in JHM this month

Influenza season hospitalization trends in Israel: A multi-year comparative analysis 2005/2006 through 2012/2013

AUTHORS: Aharona Glatman-Freedman, MD, MPH, Zalman Kaufman, MS, Yaniv Stein, BS, Hanna Sefty, MS, Hila Zadka, PhD, Barak Gordon, MD, MHA, Jill Meron, BSc, Ethel-Sherry Gordon, PhD, Rita Dichtiar, BSc, Ziona Haklai, MSc, Arnon Afek, MD, Tamy Shohat, MD, MPH



Appropriate reconciliation of cardiovascular medications after elective surgery and postdischarge acute hospital and ambulatory visits

AUTHORS: Jonathan S. Lee, MD, Ralph Gonzales, MD, MSPH, Eric Vittinghoff, PhD, Kitty K. Corbett, PhD, MPH, Kirsten E. Fleischmann, MD, Neil Sehgal, MD, MPH, Andrew D. Auerbach, MD, MPH



Patterns and appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in an academic medical center

AUTHORS: Nicholas Cox, PharmD, Stacy A. Johnson, MD, Sara Vazquez, PharmD, Ryan P. Fleming, PharmD, BCPS, Matthew T. Rondina, MD, David Kaplan, MD, Stephanie Chauv, PharmD, Gabriel V. Fontaine, PharmD, Scott M. Stevens, MD, Scott Woller, MD, Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, BCPS, FCCP



National trends (2007-2013) of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with septic shock: Impact on outcome

AUTHORS: Kshitij Chatterjee, MD, Abhinav Goyal, MD, Aditya Chada, MD, Krishna Siva Sai Kakkera, MD, Howard L Corwin, MD



Blood products provided to patients receiving inappropriate critical care

AUTHORS: Thanh H. Neville, MD, MSHS, Alyssa Ziman, MD, Neil S. Wenger, MD, MPH

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

VIDEO: Educational intervention boosts A fib anticoagulation

Results confirm value of integrated A fib care
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

 

– A program promoting broader anticoagulation of patients with atrial fibrillation that used education and feedback from practice audits produced a substantial increase in sustained anticoagulant use and cut strokes in a multinational study with almost 2,300 patients in 48 practices.

Among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who were not on an anticoagulant at baseline (34% of the enrolled group) 48% of patients in the intervention group began anticoagulant treatment and remained on it for a year with intervention compared with 18% of patients in the control arm without the intervention, Christopher B. Granger, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The intervention, which highlighted to health care providers the opportunity to start their AF patients on anticoagulant treatment, “transforms how care is provided to this population” of AF patients, Dr. Granger said in a video interview. “Doing something like this can have enormous public health implications.”

IMPACT AF (The Clinical Trial to Improve Treatment With Blood Thinners in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) randomized 2,281 AF patients in 48 practices in five middle-income countries: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Romania. Randomization was by practice, and patients were assigned to either usual care or to an intervention that ran educational sessions for patients and providers on the benefits of and best practices for using anticoagulants. The intervention also monitored anticoagulant use by the patients in each practice and gave providers case-by-case feedback on the care patients received. The educational component customized the feedback to focus on overcoming treatment barriers specific for each patient. This audit and feedback process was a key part of the intervention, Dr. Granger said.

In an adjusted analysis, among patients not on an anticoagulant at baseline, the ones managed in practices that received the intervention had a greater than fourfold likelihood of receiving anticoagulant treatment, compared with patients in practices with no intervention. The intervention was especially successful in transitioning patients off of aspirin treatment, considered ineffective for AF stroke prevention, and onto an anticoagulant, most commonly warfarin.

Overall, anticoagulant use rose by 12 percentage points from baseline among patients in the intervention practices and by 3 percentage points over baseline among the control patients, a statistically significant difference for the study’s primary endpoint.

During 1-year follow-up, 11 strokes occurred among patients managed in practices that received the intervention and 21 in those in control practices, a 52% relative hazard reduction linked with the intervention that was statistically significant, Dr. Granger reported. Concurrently with his talk, the results also appeared online (Lancet. 2017. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[17]32165-7).

“How will we take what we have learned [in IMPACT AF] and have it available to people who want to replicate this?” asked Dr. Granger. “We have partnered with several national cardiology societies, and we are working with them to optimize the tools and provide the tools we’ve used,” he said. “We will develop a website for people who want to take this information and use it in their practices.” Dr. Granger and his associates also are working with the Food and Drug Administration and other groups to come up with interventions specially designed for U.S. practice.

IMPACT AF received partial funding from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. Dr. Granger has received honoraria and research funding from all of these companies, and also from Janssen and Medtronic.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Body

 

IMPACT AF is an important study, with impressive results that confirm the value of integrated atrial fibrillation care. In the study, a comprehensive and continuous educational intervention with 11 distinct components aimed at health care professionals and patients increased the initiation of and adherence to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. This effect linked with a significantly reduced incidence of strokes.

Digital tools are an important part of the intervention. They provide both information and feedback, and they create a platform that can involve all stakeholders in management of atrial fibrillation. Informing AF patients about their treatment can result in patients who take responsibility for their management. Integrated AF management models can improve continued delivery of chronic care.

Paulus Kirchhof, MD , is a professor and deputy director of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences at the University of Birmingham, England. He has received honoraria and research funding from several drug companies. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Related Articles
Body

 

IMPACT AF is an important study, with impressive results that confirm the value of integrated atrial fibrillation care. In the study, a comprehensive and continuous educational intervention with 11 distinct components aimed at health care professionals and patients increased the initiation of and adherence to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. This effect linked with a significantly reduced incidence of strokes.

Digital tools are an important part of the intervention. They provide both information and feedback, and they create a platform that can involve all stakeholders in management of atrial fibrillation. Informing AF patients about their treatment can result in patients who take responsibility for their management. Integrated AF management models can improve continued delivery of chronic care.

Paulus Kirchhof, MD , is a professor and deputy director of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences at the University of Birmingham, England. He has received honoraria and research funding from several drug companies. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.

Body

 

IMPACT AF is an important study, with impressive results that confirm the value of integrated atrial fibrillation care. In the study, a comprehensive and continuous educational intervention with 11 distinct components aimed at health care professionals and patients increased the initiation of and adherence to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. This effect linked with a significantly reduced incidence of strokes.

Digital tools are an important part of the intervention. They provide both information and feedback, and they create a platform that can involve all stakeholders in management of atrial fibrillation. Informing AF patients about their treatment can result in patients who take responsibility for their management. Integrated AF management models can improve continued delivery of chronic care.

Paulus Kirchhof, MD , is a professor and deputy director of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences at the University of Birmingham, England. He has received honoraria and research funding from several drug companies. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.

Title
Results confirm value of integrated A fib care
Results confirm value of integrated A fib care

 

– A program promoting broader anticoagulation of patients with atrial fibrillation that used education and feedback from practice audits produced a substantial increase in sustained anticoagulant use and cut strokes in a multinational study with almost 2,300 patients in 48 practices.

Among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who were not on an anticoagulant at baseline (34% of the enrolled group) 48% of patients in the intervention group began anticoagulant treatment and remained on it for a year with intervention compared with 18% of patients in the control arm without the intervention, Christopher B. Granger, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The intervention, which highlighted to health care providers the opportunity to start their AF patients on anticoagulant treatment, “transforms how care is provided to this population” of AF patients, Dr. Granger said in a video interview. “Doing something like this can have enormous public health implications.”

IMPACT AF (The Clinical Trial to Improve Treatment With Blood Thinners in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) randomized 2,281 AF patients in 48 practices in five middle-income countries: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Romania. Randomization was by practice, and patients were assigned to either usual care or to an intervention that ran educational sessions for patients and providers on the benefits of and best practices for using anticoagulants. The intervention also monitored anticoagulant use by the patients in each practice and gave providers case-by-case feedback on the care patients received. The educational component customized the feedback to focus on overcoming treatment barriers specific for each patient. This audit and feedback process was a key part of the intervention, Dr. Granger said.

In an adjusted analysis, among patients not on an anticoagulant at baseline, the ones managed in practices that received the intervention had a greater than fourfold likelihood of receiving anticoagulant treatment, compared with patients in practices with no intervention. The intervention was especially successful in transitioning patients off of aspirin treatment, considered ineffective for AF stroke prevention, and onto an anticoagulant, most commonly warfarin.

Overall, anticoagulant use rose by 12 percentage points from baseline among patients in the intervention practices and by 3 percentage points over baseline among the control patients, a statistically significant difference for the study’s primary endpoint.

During 1-year follow-up, 11 strokes occurred among patients managed in practices that received the intervention and 21 in those in control practices, a 52% relative hazard reduction linked with the intervention that was statistically significant, Dr. Granger reported. Concurrently with his talk, the results also appeared online (Lancet. 2017. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[17]32165-7).

“How will we take what we have learned [in IMPACT AF] and have it available to people who want to replicate this?” asked Dr. Granger. “We have partnered with several national cardiology societies, and we are working with them to optimize the tools and provide the tools we’ve used,” he said. “We will develop a website for people who want to take this information and use it in their practices.” Dr. Granger and his associates also are working with the Food and Drug Administration and other groups to come up with interventions specially designed for U.S. practice.

IMPACT AF received partial funding from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. Dr. Granger has received honoraria and research funding from all of these companies, and also from Janssen and Medtronic.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

 

– A program promoting broader anticoagulation of patients with atrial fibrillation that used education and feedback from practice audits produced a substantial increase in sustained anticoagulant use and cut strokes in a multinational study with almost 2,300 patients in 48 practices.

Among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who were not on an anticoagulant at baseline (34% of the enrolled group) 48% of patients in the intervention group began anticoagulant treatment and remained on it for a year with intervention compared with 18% of patients in the control arm without the intervention, Christopher B. Granger, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The intervention, which highlighted to health care providers the opportunity to start their AF patients on anticoagulant treatment, “transforms how care is provided to this population” of AF patients, Dr. Granger said in a video interview. “Doing something like this can have enormous public health implications.”

IMPACT AF (The Clinical Trial to Improve Treatment With Blood Thinners in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) randomized 2,281 AF patients in 48 practices in five middle-income countries: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Romania. Randomization was by practice, and patients were assigned to either usual care or to an intervention that ran educational sessions for patients and providers on the benefits of and best practices for using anticoagulants. The intervention also monitored anticoagulant use by the patients in each practice and gave providers case-by-case feedback on the care patients received. The educational component customized the feedback to focus on overcoming treatment barriers specific for each patient. This audit and feedback process was a key part of the intervention, Dr. Granger said.

In an adjusted analysis, among patients not on an anticoagulant at baseline, the ones managed in practices that received the intervention had a greater than fourfold likelihood of receiving anticoagulant treatment, compared with patients in practices with no intervention. The intervention was especially successful in transitioning patients off of aspirin treatment, considered ineffective for AF stroke prevention, and onto an anticoagulant, most commonly warfarin.

Overall, anticoagulant use rose by 12 percentage points from baseline among patients in the intervention practices and by 3 percentage points over baseline among the control patients, a statistically significant difference for the study’s primary endpoint.

During 1-year follow-up, 11 strokes occurred among patients managed in practices that received the intervention and 21 in those in control practices, a 52% relative hazard reduction linked with the intervention that was statistically significant, Dr. Granger reported. Concurrently with his talk, the results also appeared online (Lancet. 2017. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[17]32165-7).

“How will we take what we have learned [in IMPACT AF] and have it available to people who want to replicate this?” asked Dr. Granger. “We have partnered with several national cardiology societies, and we are working with them to optimize the tools and provide the tools we’ve used,” he said. “We will develop a website for people who want to take this information and use it in their practices.” Dr. Granger and his associates also are working with the Food and Drug Administration and other groups to come up with interventions specially designed for U.S. practice.

IMPACT AF received partial funding from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. Dr. Granger has received honoraria and research funding from all of these companies, and also from Janssen and Medtronic.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2017

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: An educational and feedback intervention for health care providers and patients promoting anticoagulant treatment for AF substantially increased appropriate management.

Major finding: Anticoagulation rose by 12 percentage points from baseline with intervention and by 3 percentage points among controls.

Data source: IMPACT AF, which randomized 2,281 AF patients for 1 year at 48 centers in five middle-income countries.

Disclosures: IMPACT AF received partial funding from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. Dr. Granger has received honoraria and research funding from all of these companies, and also from Janssen and Medtronic.

Disqus Comments
Default

Statins linked to lower death rates in COPD

Life after STATCOPE
Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:02

 

Receiving a statin prescription within a year after diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with a 21% decrease in the subsequent risk of all-cause mortality and a 45% drop in risk of pulmonary mortality, according to the results of a large retrospective administrative database study.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock
COPD affects about 12% of adults aged 30 years and older worldwide and is associated with increased risk of progressive cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality. “Localized chronic inflammation of the airways has long been observed in COPD patients, but there is a growing understanding of systemic inflammation in a subset of patients,” the researchers noted. For example, studies have linked chronic low-level systemic inflammation or elevated C-reactive protein levels with increased risks of severe airway obstruction, other pulmonary outcomes, and adverse cardiovascular events. Such findings prompted experts to suggest that COPD progression results from systemic inflammation, not a “spill over” of pulmonary inflammation, and that statins might help slow or block this process. Although STATCOPE did not support this idea, several prior observational studies did.

To further explore the question, the researchers analyzed linked health databases from nearly 40,000 patients aged 50 years and older who had received at least three prescriptions for an anticholinergic or a short-acting beta agonist in 12 months some time between 1998 and 2007. The first prescription was considered the date of COPD “diagnosis.” The average age of the patients was 71 years; 55% were female.

A total of 7,775 patients (19.6%) who met this definition of incident COPD were prescribed a statin at least once during the subsequent year. These patients had a significantly reduced risk of subsequent all-cause mortality in univariate and multivariate analyses, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence intervals, 0.68 to 0.91; P less than .002). Statins also showed a protective effect against pulmonary mortality, with univariate and multivariate hazard ratios of 0.52 (P = .01) and 0.55 (P = .03), respectively.

The protective effect of statins held up when the investigators narrowed the exposure period to 6 months after COPD diagnosis and when they expanded it to 18 months. Exposure to statins for 80% of the 1-year window after COPD diagnosis – a proxy for statin adherence – also led to a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, but the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not reach statistical significance (0.71 to 1.01; P = .06).

The most common prescription was for atorvastatin (49%), usually for 90 days (23%), 100 days (20%), or 30 days (15%), the researchers said. While the “possibility of the ‘healthy user’ or the ‘healthy adherer’ cannot be ignored,” they adjusted for other prescriptions, comorbidities, and income level, which should have helped eliminate this effect, they added. However, they lacked data on smoking and lung function assessments, both of which are “important confounders and contributors to mortality,” they acknowledged.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported the study. One coinvestigator disclosed consulting relationships with Teva, Pfizer, and Novartis. The others had no conflicts of interest.

Body

 

Despite [its] limitations, the study results are intriguing and in line with findings from other retrospective cohorts. How then can we reconcile the apparent benefits observed in retrospective studies with the lack of clinical effect seen in prospective trials, particularly the Simvastatin in the Prevention of COPD Exacerbation (STATCOPE) study? Could it be that both negative and positive studies are “correct”? Prospective studies have thus far not been adequately powered for mortality as an endpoint. Perhaps the choice of the particular statin matters? While STATCOPE involved simvastatin, the majority of the cohort reported by Raymakers et al. received atorvastatin. [Or perhaps] the negative results of STATCOPE could be related to careful selection of study participants with a low burden of systemic inflammation.

This most recent study reinforces the idea that statins may play a beneficial role in COPD, but it isn’t clear which patients to target for therapy. It is unlikely that the findings by Raymakers et al. will reverse recent recommendations by the American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society against the use of statins for the purpose of prevention of COPD exacerbations, but the suggestion of survival advantage related to statins certainly may breathe new life into an enthusiasm greatly tempered by STATCOPE.

Or Kalchiem-Dekel, MD, and Robert M. Reed, MD, are at the pulmonary and critical care medicine division, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Neither editorialist had conflicts of interest (Chest. 2017;152:456-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.156).

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

 

Despite [its] limitations, the study results are intriguing and in line with findings from other retrospective cohorts. How then can we reconcile the apparent benefits observed in retrospective studies with the lack of clinical effect seen in prospective trials, particularly the Simvastatin in the Prevention of COPD Exacerbation (STATCOPE) study? Could it be that both negative and positive studies are “correct”? Prospective studies have thus far not been adequately powered for mortality as an endpoint. Perhaps the choice of the particular statin matters? While STATCOPE involved simvastatin, the majority of the cohort reported by Raymakers et al. received atorvastatin. [Or perhaps] the negative results of STATCOPE could be related to careful selection of study participants with a low burden of systemic inflammation.

This most recent study reinforces the idea that statins may play a beneficial role in COPD, but it isn’t clear which patients to target for therapy. It is unlikely that the findings by Raymakers et al. will reverse recent recommendations by the American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society against the use of statins for the purpose of prevention of COPD exacerbations, but the suggestion of survival advantage related to statins certainly may breathe new life into an enthusiasm greatly tempered by STATCOPE.

Or Kalchiem-Dekel, MD, and Robert M. Reed, MD, are at the pulmonary and critical care medicine division, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Neither editorialist had conflicts of interest (Chest. 2017;152:456-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.156).

Body

 

Despite [its] limitations, the study results are intriguing and in line with findings from other retrospective cohorts. How then can we reconcile the apparent benefits observed in retrospective studies with the lack of clinical effect seen in prospective trials, particularly the Simvastatin in the Prevention of COPD Exacerbation (STATCOPE) study? Could it be that both negative and positive studies are “correct”? Prospective studies have thus far not been adequately powered for mortality as an endpoint. Perhaps the choice of the particular statin matters? While STATCOPE involved simvastatin, the majority of the cohort reported by Raymakers et al. received atorvastatin. [Or perhaps] the negative results of STATCOPE could be related to careful selection of study participants with a low burden of systemic inflammation.

This most recent study reinforces the idea that statins may play a beneficial role in COPD, but it isn’t clear which patients to target for therapy. It is unlikely that the findings by Raymakers et al. will reverse recent recommendations by the American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society against the use of statins for the purpose of prevention of COPD exacerbations, but the suggestion of survival advantage related to statins certainly may breathe new life into an enthusiasm greatly tempered by STATCOPE.

Or Kalchiem-Dekel, MD, and Robert M. Reed, MD, are at the pulmonary and critical care medicine division, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Neither editorialist had conflicts of interest (Chest. 2017;152:456-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.156).

Title
Life after STATCOPE
Life after STATCOPE

 

Receiving a statin prescription within a year after diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with a 21% decrease in the subsequent risk of all-cause mortality and a 45% drop in risk of pulmonary mortality, according to the results of a large retrospective administrative database study.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock
COPD affects about 12% of adults aged 30 years and older worldwide and is associated with increased risk of progressive cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality. “Localized chronic inflammation of the airways has long been observed in COPD patients, but there is a growing understanding of systemic inflammation in a subset of patients,” the researchers noted. For example, studies have linked chronic low-level systemic inflammation or elevated C-reactive protein levels with increased risks of severe airway obstruction, other pulmonary outcomes, and adverse cardiovascular events. Such findings prompted experts to suggest that COPD progression results from systemic inflammation, not a “spill over” of pulmonary inflammation, and that statins might help slow or block this process. Although STATCOPE did not support this idea, several prior observational studies did.

To further explore the question, the researchers analyzed linked health databases from nearly 40,000 patients aged 50 years and older who had received at least three prescriptions for an anticholinergic or a short-acting beta agonist in 12 months some time between 1998 and 2007. The first prescription was considered the date of COPD “diagnosis.” The average age of the patients was 71 years; 55% were female.

A total of 7,775 patients (19.6%) who met this definition of incident COPD were prescribed a statin at least once during the subsequent year. These patients had a significantly reduced risk of subsequent all-cause mortality in univariate and multivariate analyses, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence intervals, 0.68 to 0.91; P less than .002). Statins also showed a protective effect against pulmonary mortality, with univariate and multivariate hazard ratios of 0.52 (P = .01) and 0.55 (P = .03), respectively.

The protective effect of statins held up when the investigators narrowed the exposure period to 6 months after COPD diagnosis and when they expanded it to 18 months. Exposure to statins for 80% of the 1-year window after COPD diagnosis – a proxy for statin adherence – also led to a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, but the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not reach statistical significance (0.71 to 1.01; P = .06).

The most common prescription was for atorvastatin (49%), usually for 90 days (23%), 100 days (20%), or 30 days (15%), the researchers said. While the “possibility of the ‘healthy user’ or the ‘healthy adherer’ cannot be ignored,” they adjusted for other prescriptions, comorbidities, and income level, which should have helped eliminate this effect, they added. However, they lacked data on smoking and lung function assessments, both of which are “important confounders and contributors to mortality,” they acknowledged.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported the study. One coinvestigator disclosed consulting relationships with Teva, Pfizer, and Novartis. The others had no conflicts of interest.

 

Receiving a statin prescription within a year after diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with a 21% decrease in the subsequent risk of all-cause mortality and a 45% drop in risk of pulmonary mortality, according to the results of a large retrospective administrative database study.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock
COPD affects about 12% of adults aged 30 years and older worldwide and is associated with increased risk of progressive cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality. “Localized chronic inflammation of the airways has long been observed in COPD patients, but there is a growing understanding of systemic inflammation in a subset of patients,” the researchers noted. For example, studies have linked chronic low-level systemic inflammation or elevated C-reactive protein levels with increased risks of severe airway obstruction, other pulmonary outcomes, and adverse cardiovascular events. Such findings prompted experts to suggest that COPD progression results from systemic inflammation, not a “spill over” of pulmonary inflammation, and that statins might help slow or block this process. Although STATCOPE did not support this idea, several prior observational studies did.

To further explore the question, the researchers analyzed linked health databases from nearly 40,000 patients aged 50 years and older who had received at least three prescriptions for an anticholinergic or a short-acting beta agonist in 12 months some time between 1998 and 2007. The first prescription was considered the date of COPD “diagnosis.” The average age of the patients was 71 years; 55% were female.

A total of 7,775 patients (19.6%) who met this definition of incident COPD were prescribed a statin at least once during the subsequent year. These patients had a significantly reduced risk of subsequent all-cause mortality in univariate and multivariate analyses, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence intervals, 0.68 to 0.91; P less than .002). Statins also showed a protective effect against pulmonary mortality, with univariate and multivariate hazard ratios of 0.52 (P = .01) and 0.55 (P = .03), respectively.

The protective effect of statins held up when the investigators narrowed the exposure period to 6 months after COPD diagnosis and when they expanded it to 18 months. Exposure to statins for 80% of the 1-year window after COPD diagnosis – a proxy for statin adherence – also led to a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, but the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not reach statistical significance (0.71 to 1.01; P = .06).

The most common prescription was for atorvastatin (49%), usually for 90 days (23%), 100 days (20%), or 30 days (15%), the researchers said. While the “possibility of the ‘healthy user’ or the ‘healthy adherer’ cannot be ignored,” they adjusted for other prescriptions, comorbidities, and income level, which should have helped eliminate this effect, they added. However, they lacked data on smoking and lung function assessments, both of which are “important confounders and contributors to mortality,” they acknowledged.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported the study. One coinvestigator disclosed consulting relationships with Teva, Pfizer, and Novartis. The others had no conflicts of interest.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM CHEST

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Statins might reduce the risk of death among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Major finding: Statin use was associated with a 21% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality and a 45% decrease in risk of pulmonary mortality.

Data source: A retrospective cohort study of 39,678 patients with COPD, including 7,775 prescribed statins.

Disclosures: Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported the study. One coinvestigator disclosed consulting relationships with Teva, Pfizer, and Novartis. The others had no conflicts of interest.

Disqus Comments
Default