Background
Methods
Literature search
Study selection
Data abstraction
Quality assessment
Results
Study identification and characteristics
Rate of warfarin use and prescribing patterns
Study | Study objective, (intervention/exposure and outcomes) | Study design, data source | Study population, study setting, time period | Results | Quality assessment, funding source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part A: Warfarin exposure
| |||||
Abdel-Latif et al. (2005) [7] | To determine predictors of OAC therapy for AF in LTC |
Design: case control study
Data source: medical chart, pharmacy record, and MDS |
Population: 117 residents with chronic or paroxysmal AF identified from 934 total residents
Setting: 6 LTC facilities with > 100 beds in Cleveland metropolitan area (US)
Time period: not specified | Among 117 residents (12.5% of 934) with AF, OAC was prescribed for 46%; aspirin or clopidogrel: 40%; no antithrombotic treatment: 21%. Logistic regression produced 2 independent predictors of OAC prescription: (1) Prior stroke was the primary determinant of receiving OAC (OR = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.09-0.47) sic, and (2) history of GI bleeding was a predictor for not receiving OAC (OR, 5.6; 95% CI = 1.1- 29.4). Classification and regression tree analysis found residents with prior stroke or GI bleeding and no history of coronary artery disease and who were non-Caucasian were less likely to be prescribed OAC. Those without stroke were less likely to be prescribed OAC if they were younger, had dementia or lower functional status |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; date of study not specified; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Partial; MDS cognition and functional scale scoring methods not referenced; multivariate findings not fully reported
Funding: not specified |
Christian et al. (2003) [17] | To evaluate the extent to which people of color (e.g. non-white or Hispanic) in US nursing homes were less likely to receive pharmacologic treatment of recurrent stroke |
Design: retrospective cross-sectional study
Data source: the SAGE database (links inpatient Medicare claims, drug data, and MDS data) |
Population: 19,051 nursing home residents with recent hospitalization for ischemic stroke
Setting: Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, and South Dakota (US)
Time period: 1992-1996 | Variability in use of any treatment for secondary stroke prevention (warfarin or antiplatelet agent) was observed by race/ethnicity: 58% of American Indians received therapy, 54% of non-Hispanic whites, 49% of non-Hispanic blacks, 46% of Hispanics, and only 39% of Asian/Pacific Islanders. The use of warfarin among residents with conditions warranting anticoagulant therapy was 40% among non-Hispanic whites, 36% among American Indians, 32% among non-Hispanic blacks, 26% of Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 25% among Hispanics. After controlling for confounding, Asian/Pacific Islanders (prevalence difference = -5.2, CI = -18.1 to 7.8), non-Hispanic black residents (prevalence difference = -7.6, CI = -11.2 to -3.9), and Hispanics (prevalence difference = -7.6, CI = -17.6 to 2.2) received warfarin less often than non-Hispanic whites |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Partial; likely lacked statistical power for Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and American Indians 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? No; uses data from admission only so secondary stroke prevention was more likely ordered at hospital discharge, not in LTC facility 9) Completeness of follow-up? No 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Partial; prevalence differences reported rather than association strength (i.e. no OR)
Funding: National Institute on Aging, AHRQ |
Gurwitz et al. (2007) [25] | To examine the preventability of actual and potential warfarin-related adverse events in the nursing home setting |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: nursing home records |
Population: all 490 residents of 25 nursing homes receiving warfarin therapy
Setting: 25 nursing homes (bed size range, 90-360) in Connecticut (US)
Time period: 12- month observation period (Apr 2003 - Mar 2004) | The most common indications for warfarin therapy included stroke prevention in AF (58%), treatment/prevention of DVT or PE (26%), and stroke prevention without AF (12%) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Partial; classification of warfarin use/non-use within a given resident-month not explicated 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? No; Did not analyze prognostic factors associated with adverse warfarin-related events other than warfarin exposure 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Partial; association of resident characteristics or INR values with risk of adverse warfarin-related event not assessed
Funding: AHRQ |
Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | To determine the prevalence of AF in the institutionalized elderly population and the proportion receiving warfarin; to identify clinical and functional characteristics of institutionalized elderly persons with AF that are associated with the use of warfarin; access quality of warfarin prescribing and monitoring |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: medical record review of residents with ≥ 2 weeks of warfarin therapy during the 12-month period preceding the date of medical record abstraction |
Population: 6437 residents of LTC facilities
Setting: 30 LTC facilities (6437 total number of beds) located in New England, Quebec, and Ontario (US and Canada)
Time period: Jul 1993-Aug 1995 | An electrocardiogram indicating AF was present in the records of 7.5% of 5500 LTC residents; 32% of such patients were being treated with warfarin. In multivariate analysis, only a history of stroke (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.20-2.91) was found to be positively associated with the use of warfarin in this setting. Patients with a diagnosis of dementia (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.38-0.90) and those aged _85 years (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.22-0.94) were less likely to receive warfarin therapy. Warfarin was commonly prescribed to patients with a history of bleeding (28.5%), substantial co-morbidity (30.8% major) and functional impairment (25.4% severe), a history of falls (28.5%), or concomitant potentiating drug therapy (17.7%) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes (cross-sectional) 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: DuPont Pharma, the National Institute on Aging, Medical Research Council of the Province of Quebec |
Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | To identify factors relating to initiation and discontinuation of secondary stroke prevention agents (warfarin and antiplatelets) among stroke survivors in nursing homes. |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: MDS for patient characteristics matched to the OSCAR system for facility characteristics |
Population: 16,579 stroke survivors; 9547 were not receiving any secondary stroke prevention treatment at admission; 6244 were receiving therapy
Setting: nursing homes in 6 states (US)
Time period: 1992-1996: each resident was followed ≥ 6 months | In all, 12% initiated drug therapy (warfarin or antiplatelet); 30.3% discontinued. Conditions known to increase the risk of recurrent stroke (e.g. AF) were predictive of initiation. Factors inversely related to initiation of therapy included advanced age, severe cognitive impairment, and being dependent in ADLs. Co-morbid conditions were inversely related to discontinuation of treatment, whereas advanced age and severe cognitive impairment increased likelihood of discontinuation. Black residents (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.49-0.78) were less likely than non- Hispanic white residents to initiate therapy. Asian/Pacific Islanders (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.23-0.83) were less likely than non-Hispanic white residents to discontinue therapy |
Quality assessment: for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Partial; range of follow-up for observing initiation/discontinuation events was 6-13 months 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Partial; length of follow-up not treated as a covariate in adjusted logistic regression models 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: National Institute on Aging |
Lackner et al. (1995) [9] | To assess warfarin use and monitoring in nursing home patients with NVAF, according to American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Conference guidelines |
Design: retrospective, cross-sectional study
Data source: medical record review and attending physician response to written communication from the nursing home's medical director and consultant pharmacist |
Population: 902 patients aged ≥ 60 years, from whom 69 with a diagnosis of NVAF and 16 with VAF (control group) were identified
Setting: 5 nursing homes in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minn (US)
Time period: 1-month period (June 1993) | NVAF was documented in 7.6% and VAF in 1.8% of the patients. Only 17% of patients with NVAF were receiving warfarin, compared to 31% of patients with VAF. 58% of patients with NVAF and without a conventional contraindication to warfarin had ≥ 1 risk factor for thromboembolism in addition to AF and advanced age, yet only 20% used warfarin |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No; low power 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes (cross-sectional) 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Partial; evaluated univariate association of stroke risk factors and warfarin contraindications with warfarin use 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Partial; CIs not included in any findings
Funding: Dupont Pharmaceuticals |
Lapane et al. (2006) [19] | To evaluate the impact of the implementation of the Medicare PPS on pharmacologic secondary ischemic stroke prevention (standing orders for antiplatelets or warfarin) in nursing homes |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: the SAGE database (including MDS data and all drugs taken 7 days preceding MDS assessment) |
Population: residents who were hospitalized with an ischemic stroke within 6 months (1997, n = 5008; 2000, n = 5243) of living in nursing facilities
Setting: nursing facilities in Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, or Ohio (1997: n = 1226; 2000: n = 1092) (US)
Time period: Pre- PPS period = 1997; post-PPS period = 2000 | The unadjusted proportion of use of pharmacologic agents for the secondary prevention of stroke was similar for warfarin in both time periods (1997: 22.9%; 2000: 22.4%) and increased for antiplatelets (1997:40.8%; 2000: 47.7%), as a result of the introduction of clopidogrel. Among residents with conditions indicating the use of warfarin, after adjusting for resident and facility characteristics, the likelihood of use of antiplatelets increased in the post-PPS era (adjusted OR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.15-1.38); the likelihood of use of the use of warfarin did not change (adjusted OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.86-1.14) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Partial; design does control for effects of history other than implementation of PPS between pre- and post-PPS period (e.g. issuance of prescribing guidelines) 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Partial; evaluated only 1 pre- and post-PPS year; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: supported by a National Primary Care Career Scientist Award from the Research and Development Office, Northern Ireland |
Lau et al. (2004) [10] | To identify patterns and predictors of antithrombotic use and to evaluate the appropriateness of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prophylaxis in institutionalized elderly patients with AF |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: Administrative databases and medical records |
Population: 265 LTC residents, aged ≥ 65 and older, with AF
Setting: 17 LTC institutions in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada)
Time period: Nov 2001 - Feb 2002 | Warfarin was prescribed for 49% of patients, aspirin for 22%, both for 8%, and neither for 20%. Nearly all patients (97%) were considered to be at high risk for stroke, with age being the predominant risk factor (88% ≥ 75 years), whereas about half (54%) were considered to be at low risk for bleeding. Multivariate analyses found no associations between individual risk factors for bleeding and anticoagulation treatment, with the exception of recent surgery (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.37-0.94). Overall, 54.8% of patients received appropriate antithrombotic therapy congruent with stroke and bleeding. Of patients who were optimal candidates for anticoagulation, 60% received appropriate therapy (warfarin with or without aspirin) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Partial; unlike stroke risk, categorization by bleeding risk not based on validated algorithm or consensus guideline 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: not specified |
McCormick et al. (2001) [11] | To assess: (1) the prevalence of AF and the percentage of AF patients who receive therapy with warfarin or aspirin, (2) the relationship between the presence of known risk factors for stroke and bleeding among persons with AF and their receipt of warfarin, and (3) the quality of warfarin prescribing and monitoring in nursing home residents with AF |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: Medical record review |
Population: 2587 LTC residents
Setting: 21 LTC facilities in Connecticut (US)
Time period: 1997-1998 | AF was present in 17% of LTC residents, risk factors for stroke in 93% of AF residents, and for bleeding in 80% of AF residents. Overall, 42% of AF patients were receiving warfarin. However, of 83 ideal candidates, only 53% were receiving this therapy. The odds of receiving warfarin in the study sample decreased with increasing number of risk factors for bleeding (adjusted OR for > 1 bleeding risk factor compared to none: 0.51; CI, 0.29-0.94) and increased (non-significant trend) with increasing number of stroke risk factors |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? No; stroke risk and bleeding risk classification not adequately described (i.e. no reference to validated algorithm or consensus guideline) 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Partial; a small list of potential confounders was included in the logistic regression model 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services |
Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | To explore characteristics of nursing home residents who are stroke survivors and factors associated with secondary prevention of stroke in nursing homes |
Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study
Data source: MDS |
Population: 53,829 (20.4%) residents aged > 65 years with a diagnosis of stroke (stroke type unknown)
Setting: all nursing home residents in 5 states (US)
Time period: 1992-1995 | 67% of stroke survivors and > 50% of those hospitalized with stroke over the previous 6 months were not receiving drug therapy for stroke prevention. Among those treated, most received aspirin alone (16%) or warfarin alone (10%). Independent predictors of drug treatment included co-morbid conditions (e.g. hypertension, AF, depression, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, history of GI bleeding, and peptic ulcer disease). Those aged ≥ 85 years were less likely to be treated than those aged 65-74 years (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.82-0.91); black residents were less likely to be treated than whites (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.75-0.85); and those with severe cognitive (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.60-0.67) or physical impairment (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.64-0.75) were also less likely to receive drug treatment |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Partial; only a limited set of bleeding risk factors were considered in the logistic regression model 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: National Institute on Aging, AHRQ |
Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | To determine the prevalence and predictors of non-prescribing of selected medications for 4 common geriatric conditions (including aspirin or anticoagulants for persons with a history of stroke) whose value in decreasing morbidity has been established in clinical trials |
Design: Cross-sectional study
Data source: patient characteristics and diagnoses were based on medical record reviews and in-person patient assessments; data on facility characteristics were obtained by interviewing facility administrators |
Population: 2014 residents aged ≥ 65 years
Setting: a stratified random sample of 193 residential care/assisted living facilities in Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina (US)
Time period: Oct 1997 - Nov 1998 | Of 435 patients with prior stroke (stroke type not specified) 14.4% had a contraindication for aspirin use and 0% had a contraindication for warfarin use. 37.5% were not receiving an anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent. Neither bivariate nor multivariate analysis showed an association between non-prescribing and resident characteristics. Some facility characteristics were associated with non-prescribing in bivariate analysis (traditional vs small facility [OR = 0.55; P < 0.05], new model vs small facility [OR = 0.47; P < 0.01], presence of an RN/LPN [OR = 0.58; P < 0.05]). However, in the multivariate analysis no facility characteristics were significantly associated with Non-prescribing |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? No; contraindication to warfarin use not evaluated; contraindication to aspirin use limited to peptic ulcer disease 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Partial; many covariates in multiple drug therapy study have little relevance to warfarin or antiplatelet use 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: National Institute on Aging |
Part B: Medication management interventions
| |||||
Crotty et al. (2004) [20] | To assess whether pharmacist outreach visits would improve the implementation of evidence-based clinical practice in the area of falls reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting |
Design: randomized control trial
Data source: pre- and post-intervention case note audits |
Population: 452 residential care staff was surveyed; 121 physicians were involved, with 61 receiving outreach visits. Pre- and post-intervention data were available for 715 LTC residents
Setting: 10 nursing homes and 10 hostels (low-level facilities) in South Australia
Time period: 7-month follow-up period (dates not specified) | No statistically significant difference between groups for numbers of patients at risk of stroke on aspirin at follow-up. Percent of residents with AF recorded on warfarin was similar between groups: 22.6% (pre) and 17.1% (post) in the control group, and 8.6% (pre) and 16.7% (post) in the intervention group (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.23-3.95) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Baseline comparability? Yes 2) Valid AD/cognitive outcomes assessment? Yes 3) Subjects/providers blind? Cannot be determined 4) Outcome assessors blind? Yes 5) Incomplete data adequately addressed? Yes 6) Differential dropout rate < 10%? Yes 7) Overall dropout rate < 30%? Yes; was 22.5% but as high as 37% in some cluster facilities 8) Conflict of interest reported and insignificant? Yes 9) Randomization adequate? Yes 10) Allocation concealment adequate? Yes
Funding: National Health & Medical Research Council Evidence Based Clinical Practice Research Program |
Horning et al. (2007) [21] | To evaluate clinical practice guideline adherence (including antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy for secondary stroke in prevention) in patients LTC facilities who received pharmacist-directed DSM compared with patients in other LTC facilities who received traditional DRR |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: chart review |
Population: for the secondary stroke prevention subgroup, 18 stroke patients who received DSM services and 86 stroke patients who received DRR services
Setting: DSM services (intervention) in 2 LTC facilities and DRR services (control) in 4 LTC facilities (US)
Time period: Nov 2005 | For patients with prior stroke, more DSM vs DDR patients received aspirin, clopidogrel or warfarin or were recognized with a contraindication (unadjusted, 88.9% vs 69.8%; P = 0.096; adjusted OR = 5.380; 95% CI = 0.975- 29.684) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? No; control group was determined retrospectively 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Partial; control group was determined by authors to be representative mix of local usual pharmacist consultant services 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No; intervention group may have lacked power due to low n = 107 residents 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Partial; description of DSM intervention for each of seven diseases evaluated was limited 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Partial; description of guideline adherence scoring limited; only cite consensual guidelines 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? No 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? No; did not adjust for institutional characteristics in logistic regression models 11) Analytic methods appropriate? No; limited covariate set unchanged among seven disease logistic regression models; stroke and bleeding risk not adequately modeled; no multiplicity adjustment
Funding: No outside funding. |
Papaioannou et al. (2010) [24] | To evaluate the MEDeINR system (an electronic decision support system based on a validated algorithm for warfarin dosing) by examining the impact on INR control, testing frequency, and experiences of staff in using the system |
Design: retrospective/prospective cohort study (pre-post implementation design)
Data source: pre-implementation: retrospective chart audit; post-implementation: central computer database |
Population: 128 residents (without prosthetic valve) who were taking warfarin
Setting: 6 LTC homes in Ontario (Canada)
Time period: 6 months, 3 months prior to MEDeINR implementation and 3 months post-implementation (dates not specified) | 128 (10%) of all residents (excluding those with a prosthetic valve) were taking warfarin in 6 LTC homes. The primary indications for taking warfarin were: AF (74%), DVT (20%), and PE (6%) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? No; potential survivor bias since residents who discontinued warfarin prior to intervention due to poor INR control would not have been eligible for study 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Partial; pre- and post-intervention without control does not adjust for biases such as history and maturation 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? No 8) Adequate follow-up period? Partial; some residents had < 3 months of follow-up 9) Completeness of follow-up? No; differential follow-up in pre- and post- periods not evaluated 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Partial; no covariates modeled since subjects served as own controls; assumes no time-varying relevant covariates 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Partial; sensitivity analysis to test survivor bias not performed
Funding: Canadian Institute of Health Research |
Primary indications for warfarin therapy
Rate of warfarin use
Rate of warfarin use among AF patients
Rate of warfarin use among stroke patients
Association of Resident and/or Facility Characteristics with Warfarin Prescribing
Category | Factor | Direction of association (at 95% confidence) 0 = none + = positive - = negative | Association (multivariate adjusted) (OR, 95% CI) | Endpoint | Study Condition | Study |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Admission | Admitted from hospital | + | OR = 1.16 (1.02-1.31) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] |
0 | OR = 1.12 (0.97-1.29) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Age | 65-74 | 0 | OR = 0.98 (0.61-1.57) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] |
75-84 | 0 | OR = 0.98 (0.61-1.58) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
0 | OR = 1.13 (0.98-1.31) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 0.99 (0.94-1.04) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | ||
0 | OR = 1.01 (0.86-1.19) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
≥ 85 | 0 | OR = 1.13 (0.70-1.82) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
0 | OR = 1.07 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | ||
+ | OR = 1.23 (1.05-1.43) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
- | OR = 0.46 (0.22-0.94) | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | ||
- | OR = 0.86 (0.82-0.91) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
0 | OR = 0.86 (0.72-1.04) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Bleeding risk | 1 risk factor | 0 | OR = 0.75 (0.41-1.36) | use of warfarin | AF | McCormick et al. (2001) [11] |
≥ 2 risk factors | - | OR = 0.51 (0.29-0.94) | use of warfarin | AF | McCormick et al. (2001) [11] | |
High risk | 0 | OR = 0.82 (0.52-1.30) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Cognitive impairment | Moderate | - | OR = 0.93 (0.88-0.97) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] |
0 | OR = 0.93 (0.81-1.08) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 0.98 (0.86-1.12) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Severe | 0 | OR = 1.19 (0.99-1.44) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
- | OR = 0.64 (0.52-0.80) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
- | OR = 0.63 (0.60-0.67) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
0 | OR = 1.02 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | ||
Conditions | Active malignancy | 0 | OR = 0.93 (0.57-1.51) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004)[10] |
Alzheimer's disease | - | OR = 0.77 (0.70-0.85) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
Anemia | 0 | OR = 0.87 (0.55-1.39) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Aneurysms | 0 | OR = 0.88 (0.55-1.40) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Atrial fibrillation | - | OR = 0.73 (0.64-0.83) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
+ | OR = 1.76 (1.50-2.06) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
+ | OR = 2.04 (1.95-2.14) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
Congestive heart failure | 0 | OR = 1.13 (0.98-1.30) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.04 (0.65-1.65) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | ||
0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Abdel-Latif et al. (2005) [7] | ||
0 | OR = 1.02 (0.87-1.20) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Coronary artery disease | + | OR = 1.06 (1.02-1.11) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
0 | OR = 0.99 (0.62-1.58) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | ||
Dementia | - | OR = 0.84 (0.80-0.88) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
- | OR = 0.59 (0.38-0.90) | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | ||
Depression | + | OR = 1.22 (1.02-1.46) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
+ | OR = 1.11 (1.05-1.18) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
0 | OR = 1.08 (0.93-1.24) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Diabetes mellitus | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Abdel-Latif et al. (2005) [7] | |
0 | OR = 1.17 (0.73-1.86) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | ||
Hypertension | - | OR = 0.87 (0.78-0.97) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
+ | OR = 1.23 (1.09-1.39) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 1.10 (0.69-1.75) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | ||
0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Abdel-Latif et al. (2005) [7] | ||
+ | OR = 1.27 (1.22-1.32) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
Left ventricular dysfunction | 0 | OR = 0.83 (0.63-1.09) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.07 (0.88-1.30) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Liver disease | 0 | OR = 1.53 (0.95-2.49) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Major comorbidity burden | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Moderate comorbidity burden | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Multiple conditions (4 or more) | 0 | OR = 0.84 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | |
Peptic ulcer disease | 0 | OR = 0.90 (0.57-1.43) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
- | OR = 0.64 (0.58-0.71) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
Peripheral vascular disease | + | OR = 1.13 (1.05-1.20) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
Previous bleeding | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Previous falls | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Previous GI bleeding | - | OR = 0.57 (0.52-0.62) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
- | OR = 0.18 (0.03-0.91) | use of warfarin | AF | Abdel-Latif et al. (2005) [7] | ||
Previous major bleeding | 0 | OR = 0.73 (0.46-1.15) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Previous stroke | + | OR = 4.93 (2.11-11.49) | use of warfarin | AF | Abdel-Latif et al. (2005) [7] | |
+ | OR = 1.87 (1.20-2.91) | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | ||
Previous stroke or TIA | 0 | OR = 1.24 (0.78-1.97) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Previous systemic embolus | 0 | OR = 1.46 (0.92-2.34) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Recent surgery | - | OR = 0.59 (0.37-0.94) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Renal insufficiency | 0 | OR = 0.91 (0.57-1.45) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Rheumatic mitral valvular | 0 | OR = 0.80 (0.50-1.28) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Seizure disorder | 0 | OR = 1.05 (0.66-1.67) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | |
Transient ischemic attack | + | OR = 1.34 (1.09-1.64) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.99 (0.84-1.17) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Drug Interaction | Uses meds that increase bleeding risk | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] |
0 | OR = 1.26 (0.80-1.98) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004) [10] | ||
Duration of AF | 12-24 months | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] |
> 24 months | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Onset of AF after admission | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Facility | Alzheimer's unit | 0 | OR = 0.78 (0.57-1.05) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] |
0 | OR = 1.14 (0.80-1.62) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Hospital based | 0 | OR = 0.96 (0.72-1.29) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.96 (0.75-1.23) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Location rural | 0 | OR = 0.89 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | |
Location urban | + | OR = 1.38 (1.16-1.65) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.06 (0.87-1.3) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Large new model facility (vs small) | 0 | OR = 0.61 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | |
Non-white > 10% (vs > 0% to < 5%) | 0 | OR = 1.09 (0.91-1.32) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
+ | OR = 1.22 (1.03-1.43) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Non-white > 5% to < 10% (vs > 0% to < 5%) | 0 | OR = 1.00 (0.81-1.24) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.95 (0.78-1.15) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Non-white 0% (vs > 0% to < 5%) | - | OR = 0.74 (0.57-0.96) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.17 (0.93-1.46) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Ownership status for profit (vs non-profit) | 0 | OR = 0.90 (0.76-1.07) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.90 (0.77-1.05) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Ownership status government (vs non-profit) | 0 | OR = 0.86 (0.64-1.17) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.99 (0.76-1.29) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Part of a chain | + | OR = 1.20 (1.01-1.42) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
- | OR = 0.85 (0.73-0.99) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Payment source % Medicaid (per 10 unit increase) | 0 | OR = 0.98 (0.91-1.05) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.95 (0.88-1.03) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Payment source % other-pay (per 10 unit increase) | 0 | OR = 0.94 (0.87-1.01) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.97 (0.89-1.05) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Presence of a RN/LPN | 0 | OR = 0.74 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | |
Size ≤ 80 (vs 81-199) | 0 | OR = 1.01 (0.81-1.26) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.92 (0.77-1.11) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Size ≥ 200 (vs 81 to 199) | 0 | OR = 1.17 (0.99-1.39) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.08 (0.90-1.30) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Special care unit | 0 | OR = 1.15 (0.83-1.59) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
+ | OR = 1.33 (1.02-1.73) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Staff resources any full-time physicians | - | OR = 0.76 (0.63-0.92) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.05 (0.89-1.24) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Staff resources (contract) | 0 | OR = 1.04 (0.89-1.20) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.02 (0.89-1.17) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Staff resources (physician extenders) | + | OR = 1.21 (1.0-1.47) |
discontinue warfarin
or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.08 (0.87-1.34) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Traditional facility (vs small) | 0 | OR = 0.78 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | |
Weekly physician visits | 0 | OR = 0.94 (CI notreported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | |
Gender | Female | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] |
- | OR = 0.94 (0.90-0.98) | use of warfarin orantiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
0 | OR = 0.99 (0.87-1.13) | initiate warfarin orantiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 1.00 (0.89-1.13) |
discontinue warfarinor antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 0.81 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin orantiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | ||
Physical Function | Substantial mobility | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] |
Mild impairment | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Intermediate mobility | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Moderate impairment | 0 | OR = 0.95 (0.75-1.20) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 0.90 (0.70-1.16) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | ||
0 | OR = 1.03 (0.95-1.11) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | ||
Dependent | - | OR = 0.69 (0.64-0.75) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
- | OR = 0.73 (0.56-0.96) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 0.99 (0.79-1.25) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 1.21 (CI notreported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | ||
Severe impairment | 0 | not reported | use of warfarin | AF | Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] | |
Race/ethnicity | American Indian | 0 | OR = 1.00 (0.70-1.43) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] |
0 | Difference = -0.8(-8.9 to 7.3) | prevalence difference from non-Hispanic white for receiving warfarin or antiplatelets | Recent ischemic stroke | Christian et al. (2003) [17] | ||
0 | OR = 1.47 (0.98-2.20) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Asian/Pacific islander | 0 | Difference = -5.2 (-18.1 to 7.8) | prevalencedifference from non-Hispanic white for receiving warfarin or antiplatelets | Recentischemicstroke | Christian et al. (2003) [17] | |
0 | OR = 0.71 (0.42-1.21) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
- | OR = 0.44 (0.23-0.83) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Black | - | OR = 0.80 (0.75-0.85) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
Hispanic | 0 | Difference = - 7.6 (-17.6 to 2.2) | prevalence difference from non-Hispanic white for receiving warfarin or antiplatelets | Recent ischemic stroke | Christian et al. (2003) [17] | |
0 | OR = 0.81 (0.51-1.29) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
0 | OR = 1.01 (0.62-1.65) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
Non- Hispanic black | - | OR = 0.62 (0.49-0.78) | initiate warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | |
0 | OR = 1.03 (0.86-1.24) |
discontinue warfarin or antiplatelets
| Previous stroke | Hughes et al. (2004) [18] | ||
- | Difference = - 7.6 (-11.2 to -3.9) | prevalence difference from non-Hispanic white for receiving warfarin or antiplatelets | Recent ischemic stroke | Christian et al. (2003) [17] | ||
Other | 0 | OR = 0.95 (0.86-1.04) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Quilliam et al. (2001) [12] | |
White | 0 | OR = 0.69 (CI not reported) | use of warfarin or antiplatelets | Previous stroke | Sloane et al. (2004) [13] | |
Stroke risk | 1 risk factor | 0 | OR = 1.44 (0.52-4.03) | use of warfarin | AF | McCormick et al. (2001) [11] |
2 risk factors | 0 | OR = 2.44 (0.93-6.39) | use of warfarin | AF | McCormick et al. (2001) [11] | |
3 risk factors | 0 | OR = 2.37 (0.90-6.20) | use of warfarin | AF | McCormick et al. (2001) [11] | |
≥ 4 risk factors | 0 | OR = 2.50 (0.90-6.95) | use of warfarin | AF | McCormick et al. (2001) [11] | |
High risk | 0 | OR = 1.49 (0.93-2.36) | use of warfarin | AF | Lau et al. (2004)[10] |
Previous stroke or transient ischemic attack
Atrial fibrillation
Other stroke risk factors
Depression
Age
Dementia and severe cognitive impairment
Physical functioning
Bleeding risk factors
Race/ethnicity
LTC facility
Quality assessment
Prescriber Attitudes and Concerns about Warfarin Use
Study | Study objective, (intervention/exposure and outcomes) | Study design, data source | Study population, study setting, time period | Results | Quality assessment, funding source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dharmarajan et al. (2006) [27] | To evaluate the decision whether or not to anticoagulate among physicians in practice and in various levels of training (residents and fellows) for a specific, yet not unusual, case scenario in the nursing home |
Design: cross-sectional study
Data source: survey questionnaire based on an actual case from an LTC facility. The subject of the survey was an 87-year-old female LTC facility resident with dementia, AF, and history of hip fracture who suffered a recent fall without fracture |
Population: 107 completed surveys were returned from 49 residents, 20 fellows, and 38 attending physicians
Setting: a university teaching hospital in the Bronx, NY (US)
Time period: survey dates not specified | The majority of physicians (85%) thought that long-term anticoagulation therapy was not indicated in the case patient. However, most (88%) said they would provide an antiplatelet agent (78% aspirin, 20% clopidogrel). The most cited reasons for not providing anticoagulation were risk of falls (98%), dementia (40%), and short life expectancy (32%). 92% of respondents said the patient was a candidate for short-term anticoagulation therapy. Responses to the questions were similar for all physicians (or faculty) irrespective of level of training or years in practice |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Cannot be determined; cohort selection details not provided; non-response rate not disclosed 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Cannot be determined 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No 4) Adequate description of the cohort? No; details of cohort other than practice specialty were not provided 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? No; reliability concern since limited to 1 case study; content validity of case study not described 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? No; validation assessment of response choices not performed 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? NA 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Partial; cross-tabulations performed on responses by specialty 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: Geriatric Medicine Fellowship program |
Harrold et al. (2002) [28] | To examine physician attitudes regarding the use of specialized anticoagulation services in the LTC setting |
Design: cross-sectional study
Data source: survey questionnaire |
Population: 245 physicians asked to participate in the survey; 114 (47%) responded. 91 reported that they currently cared for residents in LTC facilities and thus completed the questionnaire
Setting: 21 LTC facilities in Connecticut (US)
Time period: Nov 1999 - Jan 2000 | The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that an anticoagulation service would reduce the workload on physicians (76%), and increase the percent of time that nursing home residents on warfarin are maintained in the target therapeutic range (54%). 53% disagreed or strongly disagreed with statements suggesting that this service would reduce the risk of warfarin-related bleeding. 45% of respondents agreed with a statement that this service would intrude on physician decision-making. 53% of the respondents said they might use an anticoagulation service for managing their LTC patients on warfarin. The most desirable aspects of an anticoagulation service were surveillance for drug interactions (65%), scheduling of laboratory tests (48%), management of warfarin dosing (45%), and risk assessment for bleeding (40%). The most frequently cited challenges to managing warfarin therapy in the nursing home setting were dealing with medications that interact with warfarin (59%), keeping patients within target therapeutic range (53%), and making dosage adjustments (30%) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes; performed analysis of non-responders 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? No; minimal description of anticoagulation services provided 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Validation of new questionnaire not reported 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? NA 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? No; cross tabulation with subject attributes not performed 11) Analytic methods appropriate? No; statistical error (CIs) reported in only some findings
Funding: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services; AHRQ |
Monette et al. (1997) [29] | To assess the knowledge and attitudes of physicians regarding the use of warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with AF in LTC facilities |
Design: cross-sectional study
Data source: survey questionnaire of 2 clinical scenarios with substantial contrasts in patient characteristics: 1) 94-year old male resident with chronic AF, ischemic heart disease, CHF and osteoarthritis, no history of falls, independent in activities of daily living; 2) 80-year old female with recent stroke with resulting hemiplegia and dysarthria, having chronic AF, CHF, CAD, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic renal insufficiency, with cognitive deficits and entirely nonambulatory |
Population: 269 physicians were asked to participate in the survey; 182 (67.7%) completed the questionnaire
Setting: 30 LTC facilities located in New England, Quebec, and Ontario (US and Canada)
Time period: Feb 1995 to Jul 1995 | Only 47% of respondents indicated that the benefits of warfarin greatly outweigh the risks in this setting; the remainder of physicians indicated that benefits only slightly outweigh the risks (34%) or that risks outweigh benefits (19%). The most frequently cited contraindications to warfarin use were: excessive risk of falls (71%), history of GI bleeding (71%), history of non-CNS bleeding (36%), and history of cerebrovascular hemorrhage (25%). Among the 164 physicians who reported using the INR to monitor warfarin therapy, 27% indicated a target range with a lower limit < 2.0, 71% indicated a target range between 2.0 and 3.0, and 2% indicated an upper limit > 3.0. Among respondents who answered questions about the clinical scenarios, estimates of the risk of stroke without warfarin therapy and the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with therapy varied widely |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? No; analysis of non-responders was not performed 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes; conducted pre-testing to establish content validity 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? No further assessment validity conducted for new questionnaire 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? NA 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? No; statistical error (CIs) reported in only some findings
Funding: Dupont Pharma |
Quality assessment
Warfarin Management and Monitoring
International normalized ratio (INR)
Study | Study objective, (intervention/exposure and outcomes) | Study design, data source | Study population, study setting, time period | Results | Quality assessment, funding Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part A: Quality of oral anticoagulant prescribing and monitoring
| |||||
To describe the quality of warfarin prescribing and monitoring in VA nursing homes and to assess factors associated with maintaining a therapeutic INR |
Design:
retrospective cohort study
Data source: medical record review |
Population: all veterans (160) who received warfarin
Setting: 5 VA nursing homes (US)
Time period:
Jan 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008 | INRs were in therapeutic range for 55% of the 10,380 total person-days of warfarin. In a 4-week period, patients had an average of 5.2 (SD = 2.7) INRs obtained. 99% of the INR tests were repeated within 4 weeks of the previous result. 49% of patients had INRs in the target range for ≥ 50% of their person-days. Achieving this outcome was more likely in patients with prevalent warfarin use than with new use (adjusted OR = 2.86; 95% CI = 1.06-7.72). Patients with a history of a stroke (adjusted OR = 50.38; 95% CI = 50.18-0.80) were less likely to have therapeutic INRs for > 50% of their days. Approximately 89% of the patients at baseline were receiving ≥ 1 medication that potentially interacts with warfarin. The most frequently prescribed interacting drugs at baseline were omeprazole (51% of patients), simvastatin (45%), aspirin (34%), citalopram (18%), and levothyroxine (13%). During the study period, 46% of patients were prescribed a medication with the potential to interact with warfarin |
Quality assessment
for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Partial; length of follow-up not clearly stated in Methodology 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: various VA centers and US government agencies | |
Gurwitz et al. (2007) [25] (repeated from table 1) | The percentages of time in the < 2, 2-3, and > 3 INR ranges were 36.5%, 49.6%, and 13.9%, respectively | ||||
Gurwitz et al. (1997) [8] (repeated from table 1) | Of 122 warfarin users with adequate INR data, warfarin therapy was monitored at least every 2 weeks in 52% of the subjects, every 2-4 weeks in 32% of the subjects, and less frequently than every 4 weeks in only 16% of the subjects. On average, 117 NVAF residents with available INR data were maintained in the therapeutic range 39.6% of the time, in the subtherapeutic range 44.8% of the time, and in the supratherapeutic range 15.6% of the time; < 23 subjects (20%) were in the therapeutic range ≥ 60% of the time | ||||
Karki et al. (2003) [31] | To evaluate the warfarin management patterns in an academic nursing home and evaluate what pre-determined factors are associated with variability in the INR |
Design: case control study
Data source: medical chart review |
Population: 37 residents receiving warfarin therapy for > 3 consecutive months in a calendar year
Setting: 566-bed academic medical center nursing home (US)
Time period: 12-month period; dates not specified | For patients who had INR values exceeding the therapeutic range there was no significant difference between "easy" management (INR fluctuations of 0.5-0.99 and outside therapeutic range ≤ 10% of time, n = 18) and "difficult" management (with INR fluctuations > 0.99 and outside therapeutic range > 10% of time, n = 19) in all factors examined. The "difficult management" group received more medications known to interact with warfarin than the "easy" management. These medications may have caused the INR to increase above the normal range (P=0.003), as well as produced large (P=0.001) or small fluctuations (P=0.0007) in the INR. 54% of residents on warfarin therapy initiated a potential warfarin-interacting drug. Of all interacting medications, 55% were antibiotics and 28% were analgesics |
Quality assessment
for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Partial; limited to residents of a single nursing home 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No; very low power 4) Adequate description of the cohort? No; only limited description of nursing home and resident characteristics reported 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? No; assignment of subjects to "easy management" and "difficult management" cohorts not validated 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Partial; evaluated association of age, gender, and number of illnesses with cohort 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Partial; only limited univariate analyses conducted
Funding: not stated |
Lackner et al. (1995)[9] (repeated from table 1) | The INR was within the recommended range for NVAF over a 6-month period 37% of the time and recommended PT, 52% of the time. An equal percentage of warfarin dose changes occurred in response to a PT ratio outside the recommended range as occurred with an INR outside the recommended range | ||||
McCormick et al. (2001) [11] (repeated from table 1) | In the 42% of AF patients who were receiving warfarin therapy, the therapeutic range of INR values was maintained only 51% of the time, was below the therapeutic range 36% of the time, and was above the therapeutic range 13% of the time | ||||
Verhovsek et al. (2008) [22] | To determine how effectively warfarin was administered to a cohort of residents in LTC facilities by measuring TTR, to identify the proportion of residents prescribed warfarin-interacting drugs and to ascertain factors associated with poor INR control |
Design: Retrospective cohort study
Data source: medical chart review |
Population: 105 LTC residents receiving warfarin therapy
Setting: 5 LTC facilities in Hamilton, Ontario (Canada)
Time period: 12 months of data for each resident between October 2004 and April 2005 | 3065 INR values were available. Residents were within, below, and above the therapeutic range 54%, 35% and 11% of the time, respectively. 79% of residents were prescribed ≥ 1 warfarin-interacting medication during the period in review. The 5 most common drugs were acetaminophen (40% of residents), citalopram (25%), acetylsalicylic acid (16%), diltiazem (11%), and simvastatin (10%). Residents receiving interacting medications spent less TTR (53.0% vs 58.2%, OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.88-0.97, P=0.002). Adequacy of anticoagulation varied significantly between physicians (TTR range 45.9-63.9%) |
Quality assessment
for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No; low power for both residents and physicians studied 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Partial; some residents may have had < 6 month follow-up of INR 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? No; association of INR outcomes with subject attributes not analyzed 11) Analytic methods appropriate? No; analysis of residents limited to simple one-way tabulations
Funding: CIHR and the Regional Medical Associates |
Part B: Medication management interventions
| |||||
Allen et al. (2000) [23] | To evaluate the effectiveness of nurse practitioner management of anticoagulation using a protocol. Outcomes were frequency of blood draws as well as frequency and percentage of INRs that were out of range |
Design: retrospective cohort study
Data source: nurse practitioner maintained records |
Population: 47 patients on long-term anticoagulation therapy
Setting: 9 area nursing homes (US)
Time period: 6 months beginning June 1997 | Average number of venipuncture ranged from 0.7 -2.7 per month. Reasons for out-of-range INRs were identified 35% of the time. Percentage out of range was 15% |
Quality assessment
for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Cannot be determined; convenience sample of 47 residents 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? No 4) Adequate description of the cohort? No; resident characteristics not described 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? No 8) Adequate follow-up period? Cannot be determined; post-intervention follow-up period not described 9) Completeness of follow-up? Cannot be determined 10) Analysis controls for confounding? No; no evaluation of association of resident attributes with INR outcomes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? No; Statistical error not reported
Funding: not specified |
Papaioannou et al. (2010) [24] (repeated from Table 1) | Overall, TTR increased during the MEDeINR phase (65-69%), but was significantly increased for only 1 facility (62-71%, P< 0.05). The percentage of time in supratherapeutic range decreased from 14% to 11%, P=0.08); there was little change for the subtherapeutic range (21% to 20%, P=0.66). Overall, the average number of INR tests per 30 days decreased from 4.2 to 3.1 (P< 0.0001) per resident post-implementation. Feedback from LTC clinicians and staff indicated that the program decreased workload, improved confidence in management and decisions, and was generally easy to use |
Factors associated with INR range
Potential warfarin interactions
Quality assessment
Warfarin-related Adverse Events
Study | Study objective, (intervention/exposure and outcomes) | Study design, data source | Study population, study setting, time period | Results | Quality assessment, funding source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gurwitz et al. (2007) [25] (repeated from Table 1) | 720 warfarin-related AEs and 253 potential warfarin-related AEs were identified. Of the warfarin-related AEs, 87% were characterized as minor, 11% were deemed serious, and 2% were life-threatening or fatal. Overall, 29% of warfarin-related AEs were judged to be preventable. The rate of warfarin-related AEs was 18.8 per 100 resident-months on warfarin therapy (95% CI, 17.5-20.3 per 100 resident-months), with a rate of 5.4 preventable warfarin-related AEs per 100 resident-months (95% CI, 4.7-6.2 per 100 resident-months). Potential warfarin-related AEs occurred at a rate of 6.6 per 100 resident-months on warfarin (95% CI, 5.8-7.5 per 100 resident-months). Serious, life-threatening, or fatal events occurred at a rate of 2.5 per 100 resident-months (95% CI, 2.0-3.0 per 100 resident-months); 57% of these more severe AEs were considered preventable. Errors resulting in preventable AEs occurred most often at the prescribing and monitoring stages of warfarin management | ||||
Quilliam et al. (2001) [26] | To quantify the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents on risk of hospitalization for bleeding among an elderly nursing home stroke survivors |
Design: case- control study
Data source:
Medicare claims and MDS assessments in the SAGE database |
Population: nursing home residents, 3433 cases (residents with first hospitalization for bleeds) and 13,506 controls (residents having no such hospitalizations)
Setting: nursing homes in5 states (US)
Time period: 1992-1997 | After adjustment, use of warfarin (OR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.11-1.43) and combination (antiplatelet and warfarin) therapy (OR = 1.34; 95% CI = 0.99-1.82) were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for a bleed compared with nonusers. The odds of aspirin use was greater among cases than controls (OR, 1.07; 95% CI = 0.96-1.18) after adjustment. The numbers needed to treat to seriously harm (e.g. hospitalization for a bleed) 1 resident with aspirin and warfarin were 467 and 126, respectively. The odds of a CNS bleed with aspirin use was 1.36 (95% CI = 1.05-1.78) and 1.64 (95% CI = 1.19- 2.26) for warfarin use. The number needed to treat for harm values for CNS; bleeds were 534 (95% CI = 214- 3846) for aspirin and 301 (95% CI = 153-1012) for warfarin. Patients with GI bleeding were more likely to have taken warfarin (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.03-1.36); number needed to treat for harm, 228 (95% CI = 114- 1366). Aspirin users were not more likely to be hospitalized for GI bleeds (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.91- 1.14) |
Quality assessment for observational studies:
1) Unbiased selection of the cohort? Yes 2) Selection minimizes baseline differences in prognostic factors? Yes 3) Sample size calculated/5% difference? Yes 4) Adequate description of the cohort? Yes 5) Validated method for ascertaining exposure? Yes 6) Validated method for ascertaining clinical outcomes? Yes 7) Outcome assessment blind to exposure? Yes 8) Adequate follow-up period? Yes; cross-sectional 9) Completeness of follow-up? Yes 10) Analysis controls for confounding? Yes 11) Analytic methods appropriate? Yes
Funding: AHRQ |