Bridging vs Non-Bridging with Warfarin Peri-Procedural Management: Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

The warfarin peri-procedural management in Qatar is predominantly based on bridging (63%), compared to non-bridging. This study sought to perform a first-time cost analysis of current warfarin peri-procedural management practices, including a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of predominant bridging vs predominant non-bridging practices. From the hospital perspective, a one-year decision-analytic model followed the cost and success consequences of the peri-procedural warfarin in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 atrial fibrillation patients. Success was defined as survival with no adverse events. Outcome measures were the cost and success consequences of the 63% bridging (vs not-bridging) practice in the study setting, ie, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost/success) of the warfarin therapy when predominantly bridging based vs when predominantly non-bridging based. The model was based on Monte Carlo simulation, and sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the robustness of the study conclusions. As per 63% bridging practices, the mean overall cost of peri-procedural warfarin management per patient was USD 3,260 (QAR 11,900), associated with an overall success rate of 0.752. Based on the CEA, predominant bridging was dominant (lower cost, higher effect) over the predominant non-bridging practice in 62.2% of simulated cases, with a cost-saving of up to USD 2,001 (QAR 7,303) at an average of USD 272 (QAR 993) and was cost-effective in 36.9% of cases. Being between cost-saving and cost-effective, compared to predominant non-bridging practices, the predominant use of bridging with warfarin seems to be a favorable strategy in atrial fibrillation patients.

Medications adherence post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction: A population-based cohort study.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The use of medications for secondary prevention is the cornerstone in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, adherence to these medications is still suboptimal worldwide. This retrospective observational study aimed to assess the adherence to post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) medications, along with predictors of non-adherence. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to assess the adherence to post-PCI medications by determining the rate of prescription refills for 12 months after discharge among STEMI patients, as well as predictors of non-adherence. Adherence was assessed by medication availability 80% of the time monitored by the prescription refills rate for 1 year post-discharge. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 1334 patients who presented with STEMI and underwent primary PCI were included in our retrospective analysis. The majority of patients included were male (96%) with a mean age of 51 ± 10.2 years. The overall adherence rate for all medications was only 28.4%, with an individual adherence rate of 50.5% for aspirin, 49.9% for P2 Y12 inhibitors, 48.1% for statins, 39.6% for beta-blockers and 42.9% for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). Factors that increased the likelihood of non-adherence were prolonged hospital length of stay and getting the medications with charge (aOR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.1-3.3; p-value = 0.017, aOR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.1-3.3; p-value = 0.029, respectively), while having a regular follow-up after discharge and attending the first clinic appointment were significantly associated with decreased likelihood of non-adherence (aOR = 0.01, 95% CI 0.004-0.04; p-value < 0.001, aOR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.03-0.1; p-value < 0.001, respectively). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The adherence rate to post-PCI medications among patients with STEMI was relatively low; however, attending the first outpatient clinic appointment and having a regular follow-up reduced the likelihood of non-adherence.