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.
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).
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.
Use of ASA concomitant with DOAC therapy.
Rates of bleeding (any, nonmajor, major), rates of thrombosis (stroke, VTE, MI), emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death.
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).
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.
It is not clear how often patients receive aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) while receiving oral anticoagulation with warfarin sodium without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin, such as a ...mechanical heart valve replacement, recent percutaneous coronary intervention, or acute coronary syndrome. The clinical outcomes of such patients treated with warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with warfarin monotherapy are not well defined to date.
To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of adding aspirin to warfarin for patients without a clear therapeutic indication for combination therapy.
A registry-based cohort study of adults enrolled at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017) who were receiving warfarin therapy for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism without documentation of a recent myocardial infarction or history of valve replacement.
Aspirin use without therapeutic indication.
Rates of any bleeding, major bleeding events, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and thrombotic events at 1, 2, and 3 years.
Of the study cohort of 6539 patients (3326 men 50.9%; mean SD age, 66.1 15.5 years), 2453 patients (37.5%) without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin were receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy. Data from 2 propensity score-matched cohorts of 1844 patients were analyzed (warfarin and aspirin vs warfarin only). At 1 year, patients receiving combination warfarin and aspirin compared with those receiving warfarin only had higher rates of overall bleeding (cumulative incidence, 26.0%; 95% CI, 23.8%-28.3% vs 20.3%; 95% CI, 18.3%-22.3%; P < .001), major bleeding (5.7%; 95% CI, 4.6%-7.1% vs 3.3%; 95% CI, 2.4%-4.3%; P < .001), emergency department visits for bleeding (13.3%; 95% CI, 11.6%-15.1% vs 9.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-11.4%; P = .001), and hospitalizations for bleeding (8.1%; 6.8%-9.6% vs 5.2%; 4.1%-6.4%; P = .001). Rates of thrombosis were similar, with a 1-year cumulative incidence of 2.3% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.1%) for those receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.6%) for those receiving warfarin alone (P = .40). Similar findings persisted during 3 years of follow-up as well as in sensitivity analyses.
Compared with warfarin monotherapy, receipt of combination warfarin and aspirin therapy was associated with increased bleeding and similar observed rates of thrombosis. Further research is needed to better stratify which patients may benefit from aspirin while anticoagulated with warfarin for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism; clinicians should be judicious in selecting patients for combination therapy.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining warfarin use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) may not accurately reflect real-world populations. We aimed to determine the ...representativeness of the RCT populations to real-world patients and to describe differences in the characteristics of trial populations from trial eligible patients in a real-world setting. We hypothesized that a significant fraction of real-world patients would not qualify for the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trials and that real-world patients qualifying for the studies may have more strokes and bleeding events. We compared the inclusion and exclusion criteria, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes from RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE against data from the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI
2
), a regional network of six community- and academic-based anticoagulation clinics. Of the 1446 non-valvular AF patients in the MAQI
2
registry taking warfarin, approximately 40–60% would meet the selection criteria used in RE-LY (788, 54.5%), ROCKET-AF (566, 39.1%), and ARISTOTLE (866, 59.9%). The most common reasons for exclusion from one or more trial were anemia (15.1%), other concurrent medications (11.2%), and chronic kidney disease (9.4%). Trial-eligible MAQI
2
patients were older, more frequently female, with a higher rate of paroxysmal AF, and lower rates of congestive heart failure, previous stroke, and previous myocardial infarction than the trial populations. MAQI
2
patients eligible for each trial had a lower rate of stroke and similar rate of major bleeding than was observed in the trials. A sizable proportion of real-world AF patients managed in anticoagulation clinics would not have been eligible for the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISOTLE trials. The expected stroke risk reduction and bleeding risk among real-world AF patients on warfarin may not be congruent with published clinical trial data.
Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents offer several lifestyle and therapeutic advantages for patients relative to warfarin in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). These alternative agents are ...increasingly used in the treatment of AF, however the adoption practices, patient profiles, and reasons for switching to a DOAC from warfarin have not been well studied. Through the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative, abstracted data from 3873 AF patients, enrolled between 2010 and 2015, were collected on demographics and comorbid conditions, stroke and bleeding risk scores, and reasons for anticoagulant switching. Over the study period, patients who switched from warfarin to a DOAC had similar baseline characteristics, risk scores, and insurance status but differed in baseline CrCl. The most common reasons for switching were patient related ease of use concerns (37.5%) as opposed to clinical reasons (16.5% of patients). Only 13% of patients that switched to a DOAC switched back to warfarin by the end of the study period.
A high SAMe-TT2R2 score predicted poor warfarin control and adverse events among atrial fibrillation patients. However, the SAMe-TT2R2 score has not been well validated in venous thromboembolism ...(VTE) patients. A cohort of 1943 warfarin-treated patients with acute VTE was analyzed to correlate the SAMe-TT2R2 score with time in therapeutic range (TTR) and clinical adverse events. A TTR <60% was more frequent among patients with a high (>2) versus low (0-1) SAMe-TT2R2 score (63.4% vs 52.3%, p<0.0001). A high SAMe-TT2R2 score (>2) correlated with increased overall adverse events (7.9 vs 4.5 overall adverse events/100 patient years, p=0.002), driven primarily by increased recurrent VTE rates (4.2 vs 1.5 recurrent VTE/100 patient years, p=0.0003). The SAMe-TT2R2 score had a modest predictive ability for international normalized ratio (INR) quality and adverse clinical events among warfarin-treated VTE patients. The utility of the SAMe-TT2R2 score to guide clinical decision-making remains to be investigated.
For patients anticoagulated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin and on aspirin (ASA) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism, it is unclear if bleeding ...outcomes differ.
To assess bleeding rates for ASA with DOACs vs warfarin and one another.
Registry-based cohort study of patients followed by a 6-center quality improvement collaborative in Michigan using data from 2009 to 2022. The study included adults on ASA with warfarin or DOACs for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without a recent myocardial infarction or heart valve replacement.
After propensity matching by anticoagulant class, we compared 2 groups of 1467 patients followed for a median of 18.0 months. Any bleeding and nonmajor bleeding was increased with DOACs + ASA compared with warfarin + ASA (32.2 vs 27.8 and 27.1 vs 22.9 events/100 patient-years; relative risks RRs, 1.1 and 1.2; 95% CIs, 1.1-1.2 and 1.1-1.3, respectively). After matching by drug, patients on apixaban + ASA vs warfarin + ASA had more bleeding (31.2 vs 27.8 events/100 patient-years; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2) and nonmajor bleeding but less major bleeding (3.8 vs 4.7 events/100 patient-years; RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0) and emergency room visits for bleeding. Patients on rivaroxaban + ASA vs warfarin + ASA had more bleeding (39.3 vs 26.3 events/100 patient-years, RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6), nonmajor bleeding, and thrombosis. Patients on apixaban + ASA vs rivaroxaban + ASA had significantly less bleeding (22.5 vs 39.3/100 patient-years; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7), nonmajor bleeding, major bleeding (2.1 vs 5.5 events/100 patient-years; RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6), emergency room visits for bleeding, and thrombotic events.
Patients on DOAC + ASA without a recent myocardial infarction or heart valve replacement had more nonmajor bleeding but otherwise similar outcomes compared with warfarin + ASA. Patients treated with rivaroxaban + ASA experienced more adverse clinical events compared with warfarin + ASA or apixaban + ASA.
•Aspirin (ASA) is sometimes combined with oral anticoagulation, but this is not always indicated.•We assessed outcomes of oral anticoagulation + ASA for venous thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation.•Direct oral anticoagulants led to more nonmajor bleeding but similar outcomes to warfarin.•Major bleeding was least with apixaban + ASA, followed by warfarin + ASA, and highest with rivaroxaban + ASA.
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
< .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.
Patients on chronic warfarin therapy require regular laboratory monitoring to safely manage warfarin. Recent studies have challenged the need for routine monthly blood draws in the most stable ...warfarin-treated patients, suggesting the safety of less frequent laboratory testing (up to every 12 weeks). De-implementation efforts aim to reduce the use of low-value clinical practices. To explore barriers and facilitators of a de-implementation effort to reduce the use of frequent laboratory tests for patients with stable warfarin management in nurse/pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinics, we performed a mixed-methods study conducted within a state-wide collaborative quality improvement collaborative.
Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted post-implementation semi-structured interviews with a total of eight anticoagulation nurse or pharmacist staff members at five participating clinic sites to assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementing frequent international normalized ratio (INR) laboratory testing among patients with stable warfarin control. Interview guides were based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease (TICD) framework. Informed by interview themes, a survey was developed and administered to all anticoagulation clinical staff (n = 62) about their self-reported utilization of less frequent INR testing and specific barriers to de-implementing the standard (more frequent) INR testing practice.
From the interviews, four themes emerged congruent with TICD domains: (1) staff overestimating their actual use of less frequent INR testing (individual health professional factors), (2) barriers to appropriate patient engagement (incentives and resources), (3) broad support for an electronic medical record flag to identify potentially eligible patients (incentives and resources), and (4) the importance of personalized nurse/pharmacist feedback (individual health professional factors). In the survey (65% response rate), staff report offering less frequent INR testing to 56% (46-66%) of eligible patients. Most survey responders (n = 24; 60%) agreed that an eligibility flag in the electronic medical record would be very helpful. Twenty-four (60%) respondents agreed that periodic, personalized feedback on use of less frequent INR testing would also be helpful.
Leveraging information system notifications, reducing additional work load burden for participating patients and providers, and providing personalized feedback are strategies that may improve adoption and utilization new policies in anticoagulation clinics that focus on de-implementation.
PDF
