J. Scott Earwood, MD

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation,these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation,these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation,these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with well-controlled diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea arrives at your office for a routine annual physical. In reviewing his medications, you note that he takes a low-dose aspirin daily for “heart health.” He has no known cardiovascular disease (CVD). His calculated 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event is 11%.

Should this patient continue taking a daily aspirin for primary prevention of CVD?

Many patients in the United States take aspirin for primary prevention of CVD as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).² This recommendation was based on older studies of populations in which smoking rates were higher and statin use was less common, leading to an overall higher risk of CVD.³ (The USPSTF is currently in the process of updating its recommendation.) More recent RCTs have been done in patients with a lower baseline risk of CVD, and these outcomes are more generalizable to today’s population. This new meta-analysis includes recent RCTs that evaluated whether there is value in using aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD.

STUDY SUMMARY

No reduction in risk, increased chance of bleeding

Mahmoud and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that included 157,248 patients and assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.¹ The mean age of the total population was 61.3 years; 52% were women and 14% were smokers. The doses of aspirin used in most of the studies were ≤ 100 mg/d, although 2 of the studies examined doses that were higher. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.6 years. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding (as defined by each study). The secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and fatal and ­nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Aspirin did not lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98; 95% confidence ­interval [CI], 0.93-1.02) and was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.65; number needed to harm = 250) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58). Aspirin also had no effect on all-cause mortality in subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes mellitus or high cardiovascular risk (10-year risk > 7.5%). There was (again) an increased risk of major bleeding.

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice.

Aspirin had no effect on the secondary outcomes—with the exception of the incidence of MI (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; number needed to treat = 333). However, this outcome was associated with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 67%), and the reduction was no longer evident after limiting the analysis to the more recent trials.

WHAT’S NEW?

Study is emblematic of a shift away from daily aspirin

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice, but the change has been gradual. Newer studies—large RCTs such as ARRIVE (Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events) and ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes)—found no mortality benefit (all-cause or cardiovascular) from using aspirin in this context.

Continue to: The USPSTF guidelines...

The USPSTF guidelines in 2016 recommended prescribing daily aspirin for adults ages 50 to 59 who have a > 10% 10-year CVD risk and discussing with adults ages 60 to 69 the risks and benefits of daily aspirin.²

The 2019 American College of ­Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines state that aspirin should no longer be used routinely for primary prevention, given the lack of net benefit. Patients ages 40 to 70 who are not at increased risk of bleeding with a higher risk of CVD may be considered for daily low-dose aspirin. The guidelines also state that adults > 70 years or those with increased risk of ­bleeding should not be started on a daily aspirin.⁴

CAVEATS

Jury is still out regarding very high-risk patients

While the meta-analysis by Mahmoud and colleagues makes a good case for discontinuing aspirin for primary prevention in most patients, the data do not examine in detail whether there is a benefit in patients with very high risk (> 20%) for atherosclerotic CVD. More studies are needed before making recommendations for that specific subgroup.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to give up an accepted practice

Physicians have been recommending aspirin for primary prevention of CVD for decades and many patients, who purchase aspirin themselves, are vested in the notion that aspirin protects them. It will take time for this change in practice to be accepted. Some patients may continue taking aspirin despite recommendation to stop. Primary care physicians will need to educate patients and clearly explain the rationale for stopping daily aspirin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with well-controlled diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea arrives at your office for a routine annual physical. In reviewing his medications, you note that he takes a low-dose aspirin daily for “heart health.” He has no known cardiovascular disease (CVD). His calculated 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event is 11%.

Should this patient continue taking a daily aspirin for primary prevention of CVD?

Many patients in the United States take aspirin for primary prevention of CVD as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).² This recommendation was based on older studies of populations in which smoking rates were higher and statin use was less common, leading to an overall higher risk of CVD.³ (The USPSTF is currently in the process of updating its recommendation.) More recent RCTs have been done in patients with a lower baseline risk of CVD, and these outcomes are more generalizable to today’s population. This new meta-analysis includes recent RCTs that evaluated whether there is value in using aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD.

STUDY SUMMARY

No reduction in risk, increased chance of bleeding

Mahmoud and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that included 157,248 patients and assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.¹ The mean age of the total population was 61.3 years; 52% were women and 14% were smokers. The doses of aspirin used in most of the studies were ≤ 100 mg/d, although 2 of the studies examined doses that were higher. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.6 years. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding (as defined by each study). The secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and fatal and ­nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Aspirin did not lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98; 95% confidence ­interval [CI], 0.93-1.02) and was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.65; number needed to harm = 250) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58). Aspirin also had no effect on all-cause mortality in subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes mellitus or high cardiovascular risk (10-year risk > 7.5%). There was (again) an increased risk of major bleeding.

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice.

Aspirin had no effect on the secondary outcomes—with the exception of the incidence of MI (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; number needed to treat = 333). However, this outcome was associated with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 67%), and the reduction was no longer evident after limiting the analysis to the more recent trials.

WHAT’S NEW?

Study is emblematic of a shift away from daily aspirin

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice, but the change has been gradual. Newer studies—large RCTs such as ARRIVE (Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events) and ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes)—found no mortality benefit (all-cause or cardiovascular) from using aspirin in this context.

Continue to: The USPSTF guidelines...

The USPSTF guidelines in 2016 recommended prescribing daily aspirin for adults ages 50 to 59 who have a > 10% 10-year CVD risk and discussing with adults ages 60 to 69 the risks and benefits of daily aspirin.²

The 2019 American College of ­Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines state that aspirin should no longer be used routinely for primary prevention, given the lack of net benefit. Patients ages 40 to 70 who are not at increased risk of bleeding with a higher risk of CVD may be considered for daily low-dose aspirin. The guidelines also state that adults > 70 years or those with increased risk of ­bleeding should not be started on a daily aspirin.⁴

CAVEATS

Jury is still out regarding very high-risk patients

While the meta-analysis by Mahmoud and colleagues makes a good case for discontinuing aspirin for primary prevention in most patients, the data do not examine in detail whether there is a benefit in patients with very high risk (> 20%) for atherosclerotic CVD. More studies are needed before making recommendations for that specific subgroup.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to give up an accepted practice

Physicians have been recommending aspirin for primary prevention of CVD for decades and many patients, who purchase aspirin themselves, are vested in the notion that aspirin protects them. It will take time for this change in practice to be accepted. Some patients may continue taking aspirin despite recommendation to stop. Primary care physicians will need to educate patients and clearly explain the rationale for stopping daily aspirin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with well-controlled diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea arrives at your office for a routine annual physical. In reviewing his medications, you note that he takes a low-dose aspirin daily for “heart health.” He has no known cardiovascular disease (CVD). His calculated 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event is 11%.

Should this patient continue taking a daily aspirin for primary prevention of CVD?

Many patients in the United States take aspirin for primary prevention of CVD as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).² This recommendation was based on older studies of populations in which smoking rates were higher and statin use was less common, leading to an overall higher risk of CVD.³ (The USPSTF is currently in the process of updating its recommendation.) More recent RCTs have been done in patients with a lower baseline risk of CVD, and these outcomes are more generalizable to today’s population. This new meta-analysis includes recent RCTs that evaluated whether there is value in using aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD.

STUDY SUMMARY

No reduction in risk, increased chance of bleeding

Mahmoud and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that included 157,248 patients and assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.¹ The mean age of the total population was 61.3 years; 52% were women and 14% were smokers. The doses of aspirin used in most of the studies were ≤ 100 mg/d, although 2 of the studies examined doses that were higher. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.6 years. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding (as defined by each study). The secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and fatal and ­nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Aspirin did not lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98; 95% confidence ­interval [CI], 0.93-1.02) and was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.65; number needed to harm = 250) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58). Aspirin also had no effect on all-cause mortality in subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes mellitus or high cardiovascular risk (10-year risk > 7.5%). There was (again) an increased risk of major bleeding.

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice.

Aspirin had no effect on the secondary outcomes—with the exception of the incidence of MI (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; number needed to treat = 333). However, this outcome was associated with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 67%), and the reduction was no longer evident after limiting the analysis to the more recent trials.

WHAT’S NEW?

Study is emblematic of a shift away from daily aspirin

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice, but the change has been gradual. Newer studies—large RCTs such as ARRIVE (Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events) and ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes)—found no mortality benefit (all-cause or cardiovascular) from using aspirin in this context.

Continue to: The USPSTF guidelines...

The USPSTF guidelines in 2016 recommended prescribing daily aspirin for adults ages 50 to 59 who have a > 10% 10-year CVD risk and discussing with adults ages 60 to 69 the risks and benefits of daily aspirin.²

The 2019 American College of ­Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines state that aspirin should no longer be used routinely for primary prevention, given the lack of net benefit. Patients ages 40 to 70 who are not at increased risk of bleeding with a higher risk of CVD may be considered for daily low-dose aspirin. The guidelines also state that adults > 70 years or those with increased risk of ­bleeding should not be started on a daily aspirin.⁴

CAVEATS

Jury is still out regarding very high-risk patients

While the meta-analysis by Mahmoud and colleagues makes a good case for discontinuing aspirin for primary prevention in most patients, the data do not examine in detail whether there is a benefit in patients with very high risk (> 20%) for atherosclerotic CVD. More studies are needed before making recommendations for that specific subgroup.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to give up an accepted practice

Physicians have been recommending aspirin for primary prevention of CVD for decades and many patients, who purchase aspirin themselves, are vested in the notion that aspirin protects them. It will take time for this change in practice to be accepted. Some patients may continue taking aspirin despite recommendation to stop. Primary care physicians will need to educate patients and clearly explain the rationale for stopping daily aspirin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 50-year-old overweight male with a history of hypertension presents to your office for a yearly physical. On review of symptoms, he notes feeling constantly tired, despite reported good sleep hygiene practices. He scores 11 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and his wife complains about his snoring. You have a high suspicion of obstructive sleep apnea. What is your next step?

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is quite common, affecting at least 2% to 4% of the general adult population.² The gold standard for OSA diagnosis has been laboratory polysomnography (PSG) to measure the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), which is the average number of apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep, and the respiratory event index (REI), which is the average number of apneas, hypopneas, and respiratory effort-related arousals per hour of sleep. A minimum of 5 on the AHI or REI, along with clinical symptoms, is required for diagnosis.

Many adults go undiagnosed and untreated, however, due to barriers to diagnosis including the inconvenience of laboratory PSG.³ Sleep laboratories often have a significant wait time for evaluation, and sleeping in an unfamiliar place can be inconvenient or intolerable for some patients, making diagnosis difficult despite high clinical suspicion. Untreated sleep apnea is associated with an increased risk of hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and type 2 diabetes.⁴

Home sleep studies are an alternative for patients with a high risk of OSA without comorbid sleep conditions, heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study investigated the long-term effectiveness of diagnosis by home respiratory polygraphy (HRP) vs laboratory PSG in patients with an intermediate to high clinical suspicion for OSA.

STUDY SUMMARY

Home Dx is noninferior to lab Dx in all aspects studied

This multicenter, noninferiority randomized controlled trial and cost analysis study conducted in Spain randomized 430 adults referred to pulmonology for suspected OSA to receive either in-lab PSG or HRP. Patients received treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) if their REI was ≥ 5 for HRP or their AHI was ≥ 5 for PSG with significant clinical symptoms, which is consistent with the Spanish Sleep Network guidelines.⁵ All patients in both arms received sleep hygiene instruction, nutrition education, and single-session auto-CPAP titration, and were evaluated at 1 and 3 months to assess for compliance. At 6 months, all patients were evaluated with PSG.

Home respiratory polygraphy was found to be more cost-effective than laboratory polysomnography, with a savings equivalent to more than half the cost of PSG—or about $450 per study.

HRP was found to be non-inferior to PSG based on Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores evaluated at baseline and at 6-month follow-up (HRP mean = -4.2 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.8 to -3.6 and PSG mean -4.9; 95% CI, -5.4 to -4.3; P = .14). Both groups had similar secondary outcomes. Quality-of-life as measured by the 30-point Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire improved by an average of 6.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 16.7) in the HRP group vs 6.5 (SD = 18.1) in the PSG group (P = .92). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure improved significantly in both groups without any statistically significant difference between the groups. HRP was also found to be more cost-effective than PSG with a savings equivalent to more than half the cost of PSG, or about $450 per study (depending on the exchange rate).

WHAT’S NEW

HRP offers advantages for low-risk patients

In the majority of patients, OSA can be diagnosed at home with outcomes similar to those for lab diagnosis, decreased cost, and decreased time from suspected diagnosis to treatment. HRP is acceptable for patients with a high probability of OSA without significant comorbidities if monitoring includes at least airflow, respiratory effort, and blood oxygenation.⁶

Continue to: CAVEATS

Recommendations are somewhat ambiguous

This study, as well as current guidelines, recommend home sleep studies for patients with a high clinical suspicion or high pre-test probability of OSA and who lack comorbid conditions that could affect sleep. The comorbid conditions are well identified: COPD, heart failure hypoventilation syndromes, insomnia, hypersomnia, parasomnia, periodic limb movement disorder, narcolepsy, and chronic opioid use.⁶ However, what constitutes “a high clinical suspicion” or “high pre-test probability” was not well defined in this study.

Several clinical screening tools are available and include the ESS, Berlin Questionnaire, and STOP-BANG Scoring System (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, Pressure [systemic hypertension], Body mass index > 35, Age > 50 years, Neck circumference > 16 inches, male Gender). An ESS score ≥ 10 warrants further evaluation, but is not very sensitive. Two or more positive categories on the Berlin Questionnaire indicates a high risk of OSA with a sensitivity of 76%, 77%, and 77% for mild, moderate, and severe OSA, respectively.⁷ A score of ≥ 3 on the STOP-BANG Scoring System has been validated and has a sensitivity of 83.6%, 92.9%, and 100% for an AHI > 5, > 15, and > 30, respectively.⁸

Home sleep studies should not be used to screen the general population.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendations may present a challenge but insurance should not

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends that portable monitoring must record airflow, respiratory effort, and blood oxygenation, and the device must be able to display the raw data to be interpreted by a board-certified sleep medicine physician according to current published standards.⁶ Implementation would require appropriate selection of a home monitoring device, consultation with a sleep medicine specialist, and significant patient education to ensure interpretable results.

Insurance should not be a barrier to implementation as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accept home sleep apnea testing results for CPAP prescriptions.⁹ However, variability currently exists regarding the extent to which private insurers provide coverage for home sleep apnea testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 50-year-old overweight male with a history of hypertension presents to your office for a yearly physical. On review of symptoms, he notes feeling constantly tired, despite reported good sleep hygiene practices. He scores 11 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and his wife complains about his snoring. You have a high suspicion of obstructive sleep apnea. What is your next step?

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is quite common, affecting at least 2% to 4% of the general adult population.² The gold standard for OSA diagnosis has been laboratory polysomnography (PSG) to measure the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), which is the average number of apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep, and the respiratory event index (REI), which is the average number of apneas, hypopneas, and respiratory effort-related arousals per hour of sleep. A minimum of 5 on the AHI or REI, along with clinical symptoms, is required for diagnosis.

Many adults go undiagnosed and untreated, however, due to barriers to diagnosis including the inconvenience of laboratory PSG.³ Sleep laboratories often have a significant wait time for evaluation, and sleeping in an unfamiliar place can be inconvenient or intolerable for some patients, making diagnosis difficult despite high clinical suspicion. Untreated sleep apnea is associated with an increased risk of hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and type 2 diabetes.⁴

Home sleep studies are an alternative for patients with a high risk of OSA without comorbid sleep conditions, heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study investigated the long-term effectiveness of diagnosis by home respiratory polygraphy (HRP) vs laboratory PSG in patients with an intermediate to high clinical suspicion for OSA.

STUDY SUMMARY

Home Dx is noninferior to lab Dx in all aspects studied

This multicenter, noninferiority randomized controlled trial and cost analysis study conducted in Spain randomized 430 adults referred to pulmonology for suspected OSA to receive either in-lab PSG or HRP. Patients received treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) if their REI was ≥ 5 for HRP or their AHI was ≥ 5 for PSG with significant clinical symptoms, which is consistent with the Spanish Sleep Network guidelines.⁵ All patients in both arms received sleep hygiene instruction, nutrition education, and single-session auto-CPAP titration, and were evaluated at 1 and 3 months to assess for compliance. At 6 months, all patients were evaluated with PSG.

Home respiratory polygraphy was found to be more cost-effective than laboratory polysomnography, with a savings equivalent to more than half the cost of PSG—or about $450 per study.

HRP was found to be non-inferior to PSG based on Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores evaluated at baseline and at 6-month follow-up (HRP mean = -4.2 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.8 to -3.6 and PSG mean -4.9; 95% CI, -5.4 to -4.3; P = .14). Both groups had similar secondary outcomes. Quality-of-life as measured by the 30-point Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire improved by an average of 6.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 16.7) in the HRP group vs 6.5 (SD = 18.1) in the PSG group (P = .92). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure improved significantly in both groups without any statistically significant difference between the groups. HRP was also found to be more cost-effective than PSG with a savings equivalent to more than half the cost of PSG, or about $450 per study (depending on the exchange rate).

WHAT’S NEW

HRP offers advantages for low-risk patients

In the majority of patients, OSA can be diagnosed at home with outcomes similar to those for lab diagnosis, decreased cost, and decreased time from suspected diagnosis to treatment. HRP is acceptable for patients with a high probability of OSA without significant comorbidities if monitoring includes at least airflow, respiratory effort, and blood oxygenation.⁶

Continue to: CAVEATS

Recommendations are somewhat ambiguous

This study, as well as current guidelines, recommend home sleep studies for patients with a high clinical suspicion or high pre-test probability of OSA and who lack comorbid conditions that could affect sleep. The comorbid conditions are well identified: COPD, heart failure hypoventilation syndromes, insomnia, hypersomnia, parasomnia, periodic limb movement disorder, narcolepsy, and chronic opioid use.⁶ However, what constitutes “a high clinical suspicion” or “high pre-test probability” was not well defined in this study.

Several clinical screening tools are available and include the ESS, Berlin Questionnaire, and STOP-BANG Scoring System (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, Pressure [systemic hypertension], Body mass index > 35, Age > 50 years, Neck circumference > 16 inches, male Gender). An ESS score ≥ 10 warrants further evaluation, but is not very sensitive. Two or more positive categories on the Berlin Questionnaire indicates a high risk of OSA with a sensitivity of 76%, 77%, and 77% for mild, moderate, and severe OSA, respectively.⁷ A score of ≥ 3 on the STOP-BANG Scoring System has been validated and has a sensitivity of 83.6%, 92.9%, and 100% for an AHI > 5, > 15, and > 30, respectively.⁸

Home sleep studies should not be used to screen the general population.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendations may present a challenge but insurance should not

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends that portable monitoring must record airflow, respiratory effort, and blood oxygenation, and the device must be able to display the raw data to be interpreted by a board-certified sleep medicine physician according to current published standards.⁶ Implementation would require appropriate selection of a home monitoring device, consultation with a sleep medicine specialist, and significant patient education to ensure interpretable results.

Insurance should not be a barrier to implementation as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accept home sleep apnea testing results for CPAP prescriptions.⁹ However, variability currently exists regarding the extent to which private insurers provide coverage for home sleep apnea testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 50-year-old overweight male with a history of hypertension presents to your office for a yearly physical. On review of symptoms, he notes feeling constantly tired, despite reported good sleep hygiene practices. He scores 11 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and his wife complains about his snoring. You have a high suspicion of obstructive sleep apnea. What is your next step?

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is quite common, affecting at least 2% to 4% of the general adult population.² The gold standard for OSA diagnosis has been laboratory polysomnography (PSG) to measure the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), which is the average number of apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep, and the respiratory event index (REI), which is the average number of apneas, hypopneas, and respiratory effort-related arousals per hour of sleep. A minimum of 5 on the AHI or REI, along with clinical symptoms, is required for diagnosis.

Many adults go undiagnosed and untreated, however, due to barriers to diagnosis including the inconvenience of laboratory PSG.³ Sleep laboratories often have a significant wait time for evaluation, and sleeping in an unfamiliar place can be inconvenient or intolerable for some patients, making diagnosis difficult despite high clinical suspicion. Untreated sleep apnea is associated with an increased risk of hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and type 2 diabetes.⁴

Home sleep studies are an alternative for patients with a high risk of OSA without comorbid sleep conditions, heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study investigated the long-term effectiveness of diagnosis by home respiratory polygraphy (HRP) vs laboratory PSG in patients with an intermediate to high clinical suspicion for OSA.

STUDY SUMMARY

Home Dx is noninferior to lab Dx in all aspects studied

This multicenter, noninferiority randomized controlled trial and cost analysis study conducted in Spain randomized 430 adults referred to pulmonology for suspected OSA to receive either in-lab PSG or HRP. Patients received treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) if their REI was ≥ 5 for HRP or their AHI was ≥ 5 for PSG with significant clinical symptoms, which is consistent with the Spanish Sleep Network guidelines.⁵ All patients in both arms received sleep hygiene instruction, nutrition education, and single-session auto-CPAP titration, and were evaluated at 1 and 3 months to assess for compliance. At 6 months, all patients were evaluated with PSG.

Home respiratory polygraphy was found to be more cost-effective than laboratory polysomnography, with a savings equivalent to more than half the cost of PSG—or about $450 per study.

HRP was found to be non-inferior to PSG based on Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores evaluated at baseline and at 6-month follow-up (HRP mean = -4.2 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.8 to -3.6 and PSG mean -4.9; 95% CI, -5.4 to -4.3; P = .14). Both groups had similar secondary outcomes. Quality-of-life as measured by the 30-point Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire improved by an average of 6.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 16.7) in the HRP group vs 6.5 (SD = 18.1) in the PSG group (P = .92). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure improved significantly in both groups without any statistically significant difference between the groups. HRP was also found to be more cost-effective than PSG with a savings equivalent to more than half the cost of PSG, or about $450 per study (depending on the exchange rate).

WHAT’S NEW

HRP offers advantages for low-risk patients

In the majority of patients, OSA can be diagnosed at home with outcomes similar to those for lab diagnosis, decreased cost, and decreased time from suspected diagnosis to treatment. HRP is acceptable for patients with a high probability of OSA without significant comorbidities if monitoring includes at least airflow, respiratory effort, and blood oxygenation.⁶

Continue to: CAVEATS

Recommendations are somewhat ambiguous

This study, as well as current guidelines, recommend home sleep studies for patients with a high clinical suspicion or high pre-test probability of OSA and who lack comorbid conditions that could affect sleep. The comorbid conditions are well identified: COPD, heart failure hypoventilation syndromes, insomnia, hypersomnia, parasomnia, periodic limb movement disorder, narcolepsy, and chronic opioid use.⁶ However, what constitutes “a high clinical suspicion” or “high pre-test probability” was not well defined in this study.

Several clinical screening tools are available and include the ESS, Berlin Questionnaire, and STOP-BANG Scoring System (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, Pressure [systemic hypertension], Body mass index > 35, Age > 50 years, Neck circumference > 16 inches, male Gender). An ESS score ≥ 10 warrants further evaluation, but is not very sensitive. Two or more positive categories on the Berlin Questionnaire indicates a high risk of OSA with a sensitivity of 76%, 77%, and 77% for mild, moderate, and severe OSA, respectively.⁷ A score of ≥ 3 on the STOP-BANG Scoring System has been validated and has a sensitivity of 83.6%, 92.9%, and 100% for an AHI > 5, > 15, and > 30, respectively.⁸

Home sleep studies should not be used to screen the general population.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendations may present a challenge but insurance should not

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends that portable monitoring must record airflow, respiratory effort, and blood oxygenation, and the device must be able to display the raw data to be interpreted by a board-certified sleep medicine physician according to current published standards.⁶ Implementation would require appropriate selection of a home monitoring device, consultation with a sleep medicine specialist, and significant patient education to ensure interpretable results.

Insurance should not be a barrier to implementation as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accept home sleep apnea testing results for CPAP prescriptions.⁹ However, variability currently exists regarding the extent to which private insurers provide coverage for home sleep apnea testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.