Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Nursing Home Residents

AbstractObjectiveVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in the elderly, but its epidemiology in nursing home residents remains unclear. This study estimated rates of VTE recorded on nursing home admission and incidence during residence.DesignRetrospective analysis of AnalytiCare long term care (LTC) database for the period January 2007 to June 2009.Setting181 nursing homes in 19 US states.ParticipantsEligible residents had 1 or more admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0 assessment(s) over the study period. All VTE cases were extracted if MDS indicated deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The number of admissions and days at risk were estimated from a random sample (n = 1350) of all residents.MeasurementsThe earliest admission was identified as the admission index date. VTE cases were classified as either “On Admission” (VTE coded on admission index date) or “During Residence” (coded afterward). Residents were followed from admission index date until censoring.ResultsA total of 2144 VTE admission cases (3.7% of all admissions) were identified. A further 757 cases of VTE occurring during residence were identified, yielding an incidence of 3.68 cases of VTE per 100 person-years of postadmission residence. VTE admission rates were highest for residents younger than 50 years (4.8%, confidence interval [CI]: 3.9%–5.9%) and 50 to 64 years (5.1%, CI: 4.6%–5.7%) but similar for those aged 65 to 74 (3.6%, CI: 3.3%–4.0%), 75 to 84 (3.6%, CI: 3.3%–3.9%), and 85 years or older (3.1%, CI: 2.9%–3.4%). The incidence of VTE during residence was similar among these age strata.ConclusionApproximately 1 in 25 nursing home admissions had a VTE diagnosis. VTE incidence during residence was higher than reported in earlier nursing home studies. These incidence rates merit further investigation because diagnostic improvements may be driving greater recognition of VTE in LTC

Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Concomitant Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Background Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, coronary heart disease, stroke, and death. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular AF (NVAF) patients with concomitant OSA. Methods This was an analysis of electronic health record (EHR) data from November 2010 to December 2021. We included adults with NVAF and OSA at baseline, newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin, and with ≥12 months of prior EHR activity. Patients with valvular disease, alternative indications for oral anticoagulation, or who were pregnant were excluded. The incidence rates of developing stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding-related hospitalization were evaluated. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using propensity score-overlap weighted proportional hazards regression. Multiple sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. Results We included 21,940 rivaroxaban (20.1% at the 15 mg dose) and 38,213 warfarin (time-in-therapeutic range = 47.3 ± 28.3%) patients. Rivaroxaban was found to have similar hazard of SSE compared to warfarin (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.82–1.03). Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced rate of bleeding-related hospitalizations (HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.78–0.92) versus warfarin, as well as reductions in intracranial (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.62–0.94) and extracranial (HR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.81–0.97) bleeding. Upon sensitivity analysis restricting the population to men with a CHA2DS2VASc score ≥2 or women with a score ≥3, rivaroxaban was associated with a significant 33% risk reduction in SSE and 43% reduction in the risk of bleeding-related hospitalization. No significant interaction for the SSE or bleeding-related hospitalization outcomes was observed upon subgroup analyses. Conclusion Among patients with NVAF and OSA, rivaroxaban had similar SSE risk versus warfarin but was associated with reductions in any intracranial and extracranial bleeding-related hospitalizations. Rivaroxaban was associated with significant reductions in SSE and bleeding-related hospitalizations when the study population was restricted to patients with a moderate-to-high risk of SSE. These data should provide prescribers with additional confidence in selecting rivaroxaban in NVAF patients who have OSA at the time of anticoagulation initiation

Global Implications for COVID-19 Vaccine Series Completion: Insights from Real-World Data from the United States

This retrospective cohort analysis leveraged vaccination data for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S in the United States from the Komodo Healthcare Map database, the TriNetX Dataworks USA Network, and Cerner Real-World EHR (electronic health record) Data to evaluate rates of adherence to and completion of COVID-19 vaccination series (November 2020 through June 2021). Individuals were indexed on the date they received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, with an adherence follow-up window of 42 days. Adherence/completion rates were calculated in the overall cohort of each database and by month of initiation and stratified by age, race/ethnicity, and urban/rural status. Overall adherence and completion to 2-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccine schedules ranged from 79.4% to 87.4% and 81.0% to 89.2%, respectively. In TriNetX and Cerner, mRNA-1273 recipients were generally less adherent compared with BNT162b2 across sociodemographic groups. In Komodo, rates of adherence/completion between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 were similar. Adherence/completion were generally lower in younger (<65 years) versus older recipients (≥65 years), particularly for mRNA-1273. No other sociodemographic-based gaps in vaccine adherence/completion were identified. These data demonstrate high but incomplete adherence to/completion of multidose COVID-19 vaccines during initial vaccine rollout in the United States. Multidose schedules may contribute to challenges associated with successful global vaccination

Physicians' perspectives regarding non-medical switching of prescription medications: Results of an internet e-survey.

BACKGROUND:Physicians are in an ideal position to describe the impact of medication non-medical switching (switching commonly due to formulary changes by insurer for reasons unrelated to patient health) on their practice dynamics and patient care. We sought to examine physicians' openness to requests for non-medical switching and their experiences and opinions regarding the impact of non-medical switching on their practice, staff and patients. METHODS:An online survey of randomly-sampled physicians spending ≥10% of time providing patient care and having received ≥1 non-medical switch request during the prior 12-months. The impact of non-medical switching on clinical decision-making process; professional experience with clinical practice, patient-physician relationship, insurance process; and perceived impact on practice, staff and patients were assessed. Weighted percent responses were calculated. RESULTS:We sampled 1,010 physicians (response rate = 55.5%). Many responded being frequently not amenable (26.0%) or had reservations (41.8%) to non-medical switch requests; with >50% indicating patient stability on current therapy and suboptimal alternatives as factors frequently influencing amenability. Physicians agreed non-medical switching can create ethical concerns (clinical judgement, autonomy, ability to treat per guidelines; 74.8%, 82.3%, 53.5%, respectively), while forcing them to take responsibility for insurers' decisions (81.1%) and diverting their clinical time (84.3%). Most indicated non-medical switching increased practice burden (administrative, non-billable interactions, additional staffing, non-office patient contact, calls to/from the pharmacy; 85.0%, 72.5%, 62.2%, 64.2%, 69.5%, respectively). Physicians felt insurer processes discouraged non-medical switch challenges (76.7%) and required inconvenient lengths-of-time (76.1%) speaking to insurer representatives without proper expertise (62.0%). They believed non-medical switching negatively impacted aspects of care (effectiveness, side-effects, medication adherence and abandonment, out-of-pocket costs, medication errors; 46.5%, 53.2%, 50.6%, 49.4%, 59.6%, 54.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Physicians were frequently not amenable or had reservations regarding non-medical switching. They noted ethical concerns due to non-medical switching. Most felt non-medical switches burdened their practice and negatively impacted care

Hospitalizations and other health care resource utilization among patients with deep vein thrombosis treated with rivaroxaban versus low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin in the outpatient setting

Purpose Compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin, the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has advantages, such as simplified care, that may lead to less health care resource utilization. Methods A retrospective, matched-cohort analysis was conducted using claims dated between January 2011 and December 2013 from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases. Adult patients who had a primary diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during an outpatient or emergency room (ER) visit after November 2, 2012, and who were treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH/warfarin on the same day, were identified. Patients were observed over 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after the DVT diagnosis. The mean numbers of hospitalizations for all causes and for venous thromboembolism (VTE) (which included those for DVT or pulmonary embolism), as well as other health care resource utilization (ER, outpatient, and other visits), and the associated health care costs and pharmacy costs, were evaluated and compared between cohorts using the Lin method. Findings All of the 512 rivaroxaban-treated patients were well matched with the LMWH/warfarin-treated patients. The mean numbers of all-cause hospitalizations were significantly lower in the rivaroxaban users compared with those in the LMWH/warfarin users over 1 week (0.012 vs 0.032; P = 0.044) and 2 weeks (0.022 vs 0.048; P = 0.040). The corresponding mean numbers of VTE-related hospitalizations were significantly lower with rivaroxaban over 1 week (0.008 vs 0.028; P = 0.020), 2 weeks (0.016 vs 0.042; P = 0.020), and 4 weeks (0.034 vs 0.068; P = 0.036). The mean numbers of all-cause and VTE-related outpatient visits were also significantly lower in rivaroxaban users compared with those in LMWH/warfarin users over 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks (all, P < 0.001). In terms of all-cause and VTE-related ER and other visits, no statistically significant differences were found between cohorts over the first 4 weeks. The associated mean all-cause total health care costs were significantly lower in the rivaroxaban users compared with those in the LMWH/warfarin users over 1 week (US $2332 vs$3428; P < 0.001) and 2 weeks ($3108 vs$4524; P < 0.001); moreover, significantly lower mean costs related to all-cause hospitalizations (weeks 1 and 2) and pharmacy (weeks 1–4) were observed in patients treated with rivaroxaban, while no differences were found in costs related to ER visits (weeks 1–4), outpatient visits (weeks 1–4), or other visits (with the exception of week 1). Implications Patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban after an outpatient/ER visit had significantly lower mean numbers of hospitalizations and outpatient visits, as well as lower mean total, hospitalization, and pharmacy costs during the first 2 weeks of treatment compared with those in matched LMWH/warfarin users

CMS hospital readmission reduction program and anticoagulants received following a total hip and knee arthroplasty discharge.

OBJECTIVES: To assess association between 30 day readmission rate and treatment received after total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) discharge (rivaroxaban vs. warfarin or non-anticoagulant). To subsequently model impact of increasing rivaroxaban use on the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) penalty, which was imposed on hospitals with excess 30 day readmissions after hospitalizations for selected conditions, including THA/TKA. METHODS: The US Truven Health MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database from 1 July 2010 to 30 April 2015 was used. A retrospective claims analysis was conducted to assess the risk of all-cause 30 day readmission among patients receiving either rivaroxaban or warfarin, or no anticoagulation following THA/TKA discharge. Simulations were performed to estimate the impact of post-discharge treatment on the HRRP penalty. RESULTS: The risk-adjusted all-cause 30 day readmission rates were 1.21% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.94%-1.49%), 1.41% (95% CI: 1.19%-1.58%) and 1.95% (95% CI: 1.81%-2.11%) for rivaroxaban, warfarin and non-anticoagulant cohorts, respectively. Using these rates, simulations illustrated that when switching patients from warfarin or non-anticoagulant to rivaroxaban, annual penalty per hospital would be reduced up to 67% or 88%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban treatment post-THA/TKA discharge reduced the risk of 30 day readmission compared to non-anticoagulants. Simulations illustrated that increasing rivaroxaban use could decrease the HRRP penalty

Shorter hospital stays and lower costs for rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for venous thrombosis admissions

Background-Venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, results in a substantial healthcare system burden. This retrospective observational study compared hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization costs for patients with venous thromboembolism treated with rivaroxaban versus those treated with warfarin. Methods and Results-Hospitalizations for adult patients with a primary diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism who were initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin were selected from MarketScan's Hospital Drug Database between November 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. Patients treated with warfarin were matched 1:1 to patients treated with rivaroxaban using exact and propensity score matching. Hospital LOS, time from first dose to discharge, and hospitalization costs were reported descriptively and with generalized linear models (GLMs). The final study cohorts each included 1223 patients (751 with pulmonary embolism and 472 with deep vein thrombosis). Cohorts were well matched for demographic and clinical characteristics. Mean (±SD) LOS was 3.7±3.1 days for patients taking rivaroxaban and 5.2±3.7 days for patients taking warfarin, confirmed by GLM-adjusted results (rivaroxaban 3.7 days, warfarin 5.3 days, P < 0.001). Patients with provoked venous thromboembolism admissions showed longer LOSs (rivaroxaban 5.1±4.5 days, warfarin 6.5±5.6 days, P < 0.001) than those with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (rivaroxaban 3.3±2.4 days, warfarin 4.8±2.8 days, P < 0.001). Days from first dose to discharge were 2.4±1.7 for patients treated with rivaroxaban and 3.9±3.7 for patients treated with warfarin when initiated with parenteral anticoagulants (P < 0.001), and 2.7±1.7 and 3.7±2.1, respectively, when initiated without parenteral anticoagulants (P < 0.001). Patients initiated on rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower mean total hospitalization costs ($8688±$9927 versus $9823±$9319, P=0.004), confirmed by modeling (rivaroxaban $8387 [95$8035-$8739]; warfarin$10 275 [95% confidence interval, $9842-$10 708]). Conclusions-Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower hospitalization costs compared with warfarin