Assessment of an Intervention to Reduce Aspirin Prescribing for Patients Receiving Warfarin for Anticoagulation

Importance: For some patients receiving warfarin, adding aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) increases bleeding risk with unclear treatment benefit. Reducing excess aspirin use could be associated with improved clinical outcomes. Objective: To assess changes in aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombosis event rates among patients treated with warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pre-post observational quality improvement study was conducted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, at a 6-center quality improvement collaborative in Michigan among 6738 adults taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without an apparent indication for concomitant aspirin. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 26, 2020, to June 14, 2021. Intervention: Primary care professionals for patients taking aspirin were asked whether an ongoing combination aspirin and warfarin treatment was indicated. If not, then aspirin was discontinued with the approval of the managing clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were assessed before and after intervention for the primary analysis and before and after 24 months before the intervention (when rates of aspirin use first began to decrease) for the secondary analysis. Outcomes included the rate of aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombotic outcomes. An interrupted time series analysis assessed cumulative monthly event rates over time. Results: A total of 6738 patients treated with warfarin (3160 men [46.9%]; mean [SD] age, 62.8 [16.2] years) were followed up for a median of 6.7 months (IQR, 3.2-19.3 months). Aspirin use decreased slightly from a baseline mean use of 29.4% (95% CI, 28.9%-29.9%) to 27.1% (95% CI, 26.1%-28.0%) during the 24 months before the intervention (P \u3c .001 for slope before and after 24 months before the intervention) with an accelerated decrease after the intervention (mean aspirin use, 15.7%; 95% CI, 14.8%-16.8%; P = .001 for slope before and after intervention). In the primary analysis, the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in major bleeding events per month (preintervention, 0.31%; 95% CI, 0.27%-0.34%; postintervention, 0.21%; 95% CI, 0.14%-0.28%; P = .03 for difference in slope before and after intervention). No change was observed in mean percentage of patients having a thrombotic event from before to after the intervention (0.21% vs 0.24%; P = .34 for difference in slope). In the secondary analysis, reducing aspirin use (starting 24 months before the intervention) was associated with decreases in mean percentage of patients having any bleeding event (2.3% vs 1.5%; P = .02 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), mean percentage of patients having a major bleeding event (0.31% vs 0.25%; P = .001 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), and mean percentage of patients with an emergency department visit for bleeding (0.99% vs 0.67%; P = .04 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), with no change in mean percentage of patients with a thrombotic event (0.20% vs 0.23%; P = .36 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement intervention was associated with an acceleration of a preexisting decrease in aspirin use among patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without a clear indication for aspirin therapy. Reductions in aspirin use were associated with reduced bleeding. This study suggests that an anticoagulation clinic-based aspirin deimplementation intervention can improve guideline-concordant aspirin use

Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants with Aspirin Versus Warfarin with Aspirin for Atrial Fibrillation and/or Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Introduction: The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) including apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban are increasingly utilized for the management of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) and/or non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Adding aspirin (ASA) to warfarin or DOAC therapy increases bleeding risk. Patients on combination therapy with ASA and an anticoagulant were not well represented in clinical trials comparing DOACs to warfarin. We sought to compare bleeding and thrombotic outcomes with DOACs and ASA compared to warfarin and ASA in a non-trial setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective registry-based cohort study of adults on DOAC or warfarin therapy for VTE and/or NVAF. Warfarin treated patients were followed by six anticoagulation clinics. Four out of the six clinics contributed data on their patients that were on DOACs in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI 2) from January 2009 to June 2021. Patients were excluded if they had a history of heart valve replacement, recent myocardial infarction, or less than 3 months of follow-up. Two propensity matched cohorts (warfarin+ASA vs DOAC+ASA) of patients were analyzed based on ASA use at the time of study enrollment. The primary outcome was any new bleeding event. Secondary outcomes included new episodes of arterial or venous thrombosis, bleeding event type (major, fatal, life threatening, central nervous system, and non-major bleeding), emergency room visits, hospitalizations, transfusions, and death. Random chart audits were done to confirm the accuracy of the abstracted data. Event rates were compared using Poisson regression. Results: We identified a total of 1,139 patients on DOACs plus ASA and 4,422 patients on warfarin plus ASA. After propensity matching, we compared two groups of 1,114 matched patients. DOAC treated patients were predominately on apixaban (62.3%) and rivaroxaban (30.4%), most often at therapeutic doses (Table 1). Patients were largely (90.5%) on low dose ASA (≤ 100 mg). Patient demographics, co-morbidities, indication for anticoagulation, history of bleeding or clotting, medications, and duration of follow-up were well-balanced after matching. Patients were followed for a median of 11.7 months (interquartile range 4.4 and 34 months). Patients treated with DOAC+ASA had 2.4 thrombotic events per 100 patient years compared to 2.2 thrombotic events per 100 patient years with warfarin+ASA (P=0.78). There were no significant differences observed between groups by thrombotic subtype (stroke, transient ischemic attack, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, table 1). Bleeding was also similar with 30.1 bleeding events per 100 patient years with DOAC+ASA compared to 27.8 bleeds per 100 patient years with warfarin+ASA (P=0.24). There were no significant differences by bleeding subtype (table 1). Hospitalizations for clotting occurred less frequently with DOAC+ASA (0.9 hospitalizations per 100 patient years) compared to warfarin+ASA (1.7 hospitalizations per 100 patient years, P=0.03). Mortality, transfusions, and healthcare utilization were otherwise similar between the two groups. Conclusions: For patients on a DOAC versus warfarin with ASA for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolic disease without a recent myocardial infarction or heart valve replacement, bleeding and thrombotic outcomes were similar

Adverse Events Associated With the Addition of Aspirin to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy Without a Clear Indication

Importance: It is unclear how many patients treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are using concomitant acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, or aspirin) and how this affects clinical outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of prescription of concomitant ASA and DOAC therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based cohort study took place at 4 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan from January 2015 to December 2019. Eligible participants were adults undergoing treatment with a DOAC for AF or VTE, without a recent myocardial infarction (MI) or history of heart valve replacement, with at least 3 months of follow-up. Exposures: Use of ASA concomitant with DOAC therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of bleeding (any, nonmajor, major), rates of thrombosis (stroke, VTE, MI), emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death. Results: Of the study cohort of 3280 patients (1673 [51.0%] men; mean [SD] age 68.2 [13.3] years), 1107 (33.8%) patients without a clear indication for ASA were being treated with DOACs and ASA. Two propensity score-matched cohorts, each with 1047 patients, were analyzed (DOAC plus ASA and DOAC only). Patients were followed up for a mean (SD) of 20.9 (19.0) months. Patients taking DOAC and ASA experienced more bleeding events compared with DOAC monotherapy (26.0 bleeds vs 31.6 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .01). Specifically, patients undergoing combination therapy had significantly higher rates of nonmajor bleeding (26.1 bleeds vs 21.7 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .02) compared with DOAC monotherapy. Major bleeding rates were similar between the 2 cohorts. Thrombotic event rates were also similar between the cohorts (2.5 events vs 2.3 events per 100 patient years for patients treated with DOAC and ASA compared with DOAC monotherapy, P = .80). Patients were more often hospitalized while undergoing combination therapy (9.1 vs 6.5 admissions per 100 patient years, P = .02). Conclusion and Relevance: Nearly one-third of patients with AF and/or VTE who were treated with a DOAC received ASA without a clear indication. Compared with DOAC monotherapy, concurrent DOAC and ASA use was associated with increased bleeding and hospitalizations but similar observed thrombosis rate. Future research should identify and deprescribe ASA for patients when the risk exceeds the anticipated benefit

Anticoagulant medication adherence for cancer‐associated thrombosis: A comparison of LMWH to DOACs

BackgroundLow molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are used to treat cancer‐associated thrombosis (CAT). It is not clear if patients are less adherent to LMWH compared to DOACs.ObjectivesTo compare medication persistence and adherence between LMWH and DOACs.Patients/MethodsWe analyzed Optum’s de‐identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database of privately insured adults with cancer diagnosed between January 2009 and October 2015 who were undergoing chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted or hormonal therapies; developed CAT; and were treated with an outpatient anticoagulant. The proportion of days covered (PDC) was calculated from the date of anticoagulant prescription until the anticoagulant was switched, stopped, or the study end. Medication adherence was defined as PDC ≥ 80%, ≥95%, and by comparing the mean PDC.ResultsTwo propensity‐matched groups of 1128 patients were identified. Patient persistence was higher with DOACs compared to LMWH (median 116 days versus 34 days). With adherence defined as PDC ≥ 80%, we found no significant difference (95.6% versus 94.6% adherence with DOACs versus LMWH, P = .33). The mean difference of PDC between the two groups was also similar. With medication adherence defined as PDC ≥ 95%, adherence was evident in 73% of DOAC users and 81% of patients on LMWH (P < .001). Prescription copayments were higher on average for LMWH compared to DOACs (mean $153.61 versus 40.67; standard deviation$306.74 versus $33.11).ConclusionPatients remain on DOACs longer than LMWH, but medication adherence is similar with LMWH.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166289/1/jth15153_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166289/2/jth15153.pd

The impact of adding aspirin to warfarin without an apparent indication: An exploration of patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolic disease.

Introduction: Warfarin and aspirin (ASA) are widely used to prevent or treat thromboembolic and atherosclerotic diseases. The most common indications for warfarin use are stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) and for the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). When patients are started on warfarin, many are already taking ASA or they are subsequently placed on ASA due to other co-morbidities. There are limited indications for the combination of warfarin plus ASA, including mechanical heart valves, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or after acute coronary syndromes. Evidence suggests combination warfarin-ASA may offer no benefit, but place patients at increased bleeding risk outside of these indications. We sought to assess the patient characteristics and outcomes of patients on warfarin for AF or VTE, comparing those who were on concurrent ASA without a strong indication (myocardial infarction [MI] within 6 months, mechanical heart valve or PCI) to those not on ASA. We hypothesized that combination therapy (warfarin-ASA) would result in increased bleeding rates with similar rates of MI, recurrent VTE, stroke, or death. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients, initiated on warfarin for AF or VTE between January 2009 and June 2017. Patients were recruited through the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative, a collaborative of six outpatient anticoagulation clinics throughout the state of Michigan. Patients with less than three months of follow-up, a MI within six months, and/or history of valve replacement were excluded. Patients were analyzed based on their aspirin use at the time of study enrollment. A HAS-BLED score, modified to exclude aspirin use, and a Charlson Co-morbidity Index was calculated for each patient at enrollment. Analyses were performed using Student\u27s t-tests, Wilcoxon Rank-sum tests, chi-square tests and Fisher\u27s exact tests when appropriate. Survival and Poisson regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of ASA use on various outcomes. Results: A total of 6,572 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean duration of follow-up of 21.2 months; 38% were on warfarin-ASA compared to 62% on warfarin monotherapy. Patients on warfarin-ASA were older (mean 70.2±12.7 vs. 63.7±16.5, p\u3c0.001), more often male (56.7% vs. 47.3%, p\u3c0.001), and were more likely anticoagulated for AF (66.3% vs. 42.3%, p\u3c0.001). Warfarin-ASA patients were more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes mellitus, tobacco use, or hypertension), a history of stroke, heart failure, or a history of coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients on warfarin-ASA had a higher HAS-BLED score (mean 2.4±1.2 vs. 1.8±1.2, p\u3c0.001), and Charlson Co-morbidity Index (mean 4.8±2.0 vs. 3.6±2.1, p\u3c0.001). Patients treated with warfarin-ASA vs. warfarin alone experienced less DVTs (0.7/100 patient years [pt-yr] vs. 1.3/100-pt-yr, p=0.002) and PE (0.1/100-pt-yr vs. 0.4/100-pt-yr, p=0.002), but had a higher rate of ischemic/embolic strokes (0.7/100-pt-yr vs. 0.4/100-pt-yr, p=0.02). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations for thromboembolic events were similar. Patients treated with warfarin-ASA vs. warfarin alone had a higher 1-year probability of having a major bleeding event (6.1% vs. 3.2%, p\u3c0.001) or non-major bleeding event (22.9% vs. 18.7%, p=0.004). Warfarin-ASA treated patients had a higher rate of hospitalizations for bleeding (8.4/100-pt-yr vs. 5.7/100-pt-yr, p\u3c0.001), blood transfusions (5.2/100-pt-yr vs. 4.1/100-pt-yr, p=0.009) and all-cause mortality relative to warfarin alone (4.1/100-pt-yr vs. 3.1/100-pt-yr, p=0.005). Kaplan- Meier curves for any clotting event, all bleeding events, major bleeding events, and death are shown (figure 1). A sensitivity analysis was performed that further excluded any history of MI, CAD, PCI, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary artery bypass grafting, and showed similar results. Conclusion: Over one-third of patients in an unselected practice-based setting are treated with warfarin-ASA for AF and/or VTE without a clear indication. Compared to warfarin monotherapy, this was associated with minimally increased protection against VTE but with a significant increase in bleeding and perhaps mortality. Further research is needed to better stratify who should receive aspirin while on warfarin

Sociodemographic factors in patients continuing warfarin vs those transitioning to direct oral anticoagulants.

Clinical factors and patient preferences are important for selecting oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The relative association of sociodemographic factors with anticoagulant use is unknown. We evaluated a prospective cohort to compare sociodemographic variables in patients who continued on warfarin for AF or VTE to those who transitioned to 1 of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Adult patients, newly started on warfarin, were enrolled through 6 anticoagulation clinics across Michigan. Of 8468 patients, 53.3% had AF, 45.6% had VTE, and 1.1% had both. Of these, 696 (8.2%) switched from warfarin to a DOAC. There were no significant differences between switchers and nonswitchers for percentage of time with a therapeutic international normalized ratio on warfarin, urban-rural residence status, or health insurance. Switchers were more often white (83.3% vs 77.7%; P \u3c .001), partnered (67.3% vs 59.2%; P \u3c .001), or resided in a zip code with a higher median household income (P \u3c .001). The results show that sociodemographic factors, such as race, partnered status, and income are associated with a patient\u27s likelihood of switching to a DOAC vs remaining on warfarin therapy. Although clinical factors predominate, the reason for, and impact of, these observed variations in care requires further investigation