Barriers to integrating direct oral anticoagulants into anticoagulation clinic care: A mixedâ methods study

BackgroundOutpatient anticoagulation clinics were initially developed to care for patients taking vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. There has not been a systematic evaluation of the barriers and facilitators to integrating direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) care into outpatient anticoagulation clinics.MethodsWe performed a mixed methods study consisting of an online survey of anticoagulation clinic providers and semiâ structured interviews with anticoagulation clinic leaders and managers between March and May of 2017. Interviews were transcribed and coded, exploring for themes around barriers and facilitators to DOAC care within anticoagulation clinics. Survey questions pertaining to the specific themes identified in the interviews were analyzed using summary statistics.ResultsSurvey responses were collected from 159 unique anticoagulation clinics and 20 semiâ structured interviews were conducted. Three primary barriers to DOAC care in the anticoagulation clinic were described by the interviewees: (a) a lack of provider awareness for ongoing monitoring and services provided by the anticoagulation clinic; (b) financial challenges to providing care to DOAC patients in an anticoagulation clinic model; and (c) clinical knowledge versus scope of care by the anticoagulation staff. These themes linked to three key areas of variation, including: (a) the size and hospital affiliation of the anticoagulation clinic; (b) the use of faceâ toâ face versus telephoneâ based care; and (c) the use of nurses or pharmacists in the anticoagulation clinic.ConclusionsAnticoagulation clinics in the United States experience important barriers to integrating DOAC care. These barriers vary based on the clinic size, model for warfarin care, and staff credentials (nursing or pharmacy).Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147845/1/rth212157.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147845/2/rth212157_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147845/3/rth212157-sup-0001-Supinfo.pd

Periprocedural bridging anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism: A registry- based cohort study

BackgroundUse of bridging anticoagulation increases a patient’s bleeding risk without clear evidence of thrombotic prevention among warfarin- treated patients with atrial fibrillation. Contemporary use of bridging anticoagulation among warfarin- treated patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) has not been studied.MethodsWe identified warfarin- treated patients with VTE who temporarily stopped warfarin for a surgical procedure between 2010 and 2018 at six health systems. Using the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians guideline, we assessed use of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation based on recurrent VTE risk. Recurrent VTE risk and 30- day outcomes (bleeding, thromboembolism, emergency department visit) were each assessed using logistic regression adjusted for multiple procedures per patient.ResultsDuring the study period, 789 warfarin- treated patients with VTE underwent 1529 procedures (median, 2; interquartile range, 1- 4). Unadjusted use of bridging anticoagulation was more common in patients at high risk for VTE recurrence (99/171, 57.9%) than for patients at moderate (515/1078, 47.8%) or low risk of recurrence (134/280, 47.86%). Bridging anticoagulation use was higher in high- risk patients compared with low- or moderate- risk patients in both unadjusted (P = .013) and patient- level cluster- adjusted analyses (P = .031). Adherence to American College of Chest Physicians guidelines in high- and low- risk patients did not change during the study period (odds ratio, 0.98 per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.91- 1.05). Adverse events were rare and not statistically different between the two treatment groups.ConclusionsBridging anticoagulation was commonly overused among low- risk patients and underused among high- risk patients treated with warfarin for VTE. Adverse events were rare and not different between the two treatment groups.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/156139/2/jth14903_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/156139/1/jth14903.pd

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

The Hsp90 co-chaperones Sti1, Aha1, and P23 regulate adaptive responses to antifungal azoles

Heat Shock Protein 90 (Hsp90) is essential for tumor progression in humans and drug resistance in fungi. However, the roles of its many co-chaperones in antifungal resistance are unknown. In this study, by susceptibility test of Neurospora crassa mutants lacking each of 18 Hsp90/Calcineurin system member genes (including 8 Hsp90 co-chaperone genes) to antifungal drugs and other stresses, we demonstrate that the Hsp90 co-chaperones Sti1 (Hop1 in yeast), Aha1, and P23 (Sba1 in yeast) were required for the basal resistance to antifungal azoles and heat stress. Deletion of any of them resulted in hypersensitivity to azoles and heat. Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis showed that the toxic sterols eburicol and 14α-methyl-3,6-diol were significantly accumulated in the sti1 and p23 deletion mutants after ketoconazole treatment, which has been shown before to led to cell membrane stress. At the transcriptional level, Aha1, Sti1, and P23 positively regulate responses to ketoconazole stress by erg11 and erg6, key genes in the ergosterol biosynthetic pathway. Aha1, Sti1, and P23 are highly conserved in fungi, and sti1 and p23 deletion also increased the susceptibility to azoles in Fusarium verticillioides. These results indicate that Hsp90-cochaperones Aha1, Sti1, and P23 are critical for the basal azole resistance and could be potential targets for developing new antifungal agents