Integrated management of atrial fibrillation in primary care: results of the ALL-IN cluster randomized trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether integrated care for atrial fibrillation (AF) can be safely orchestrated in primary care. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ALL-IN trial was a cluster randomized, open-label, pragmatic non-inferiority trial performed in primary care practices in the Netherlands. We randomized 26 practices: 15 to the integrated care intervention and 11 to usual care. The integrated care intervention consisted of (i) quarterly AF check-ups by trained nurses in primary care, also focusing on possibly interfering comorbidities, (ii) monitoring of anticoagulation therapy in primary care, and finally (iii) easy-access availability of consultations from cardiologists and anticoagulation clinics. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during 2 years of follow-up. In the intervention arm, 527 out of 941 eligible AF patients aged ≥65 years provided informed consent to undergo the intervention. These 527 patients were compared with 713 AF patients in the control arm receiving usual care. Median age was 77 (interquartile range 72-83) years. The all-cause mortality rate was 3.5 per 100 patient-years in the intervention arm vs. 6.7 per 100 patient-years in the control arm [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.82]. For non-cardiovascular mortality, the adjusted HR was 0.47 (95% CI 0.27-0.82). For other adverse events, no statistically significant differences were observed. CONCLUSION: In this cluster randomized trial, integrated care for elderly AF patients in primary care showed a 45% reduction in all-cause mortality when compared with usual care.

Integrated management of atrial fibrillation including tailoring of anticoagulation in primary care: study design of the ALL-IN cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: In our ageing society, we are at the merge of an expected epidemic of atrial fibrillation (AF). AF management requires an integrated approach, including rate or rhythm control, stroke prevention with anticoagulation and treatment of comorbidities such as heart failure or type 2 diabetes. As such, primary care seems to be the logical healthcare setting for the chronic management of patients with AF. However, primary care has not yet played a dominant role in AF management, which has been in fact more fragmented between different healthcare providers. This fragmentation might have contributed to high healthcare costs. To demonstrate the feasibility of managing AF in primary care, studies are needed that evaluate the safety and (cost-)effectiveness of integrated AF management in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ALL-IN trial is a multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, non-inferiority trial performed in primary care practices in a suburban region in the Netherlands. We aim to include a minimum of 1000 patients with AF aged 65 years or more from around 18 to 30 practices. Duration of the study is 2 years. Practices will be randomised to either the intervention arm (providing integrated AF management, involving a trained practice nurse and collaboration with secondary care) or the control arm (care as usual). The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints are cardiovascular mortality, (non)-cardiovascular hospitalisation, major adverse cardiac events, stroke, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Isala Hospital Zwolle, the Netherlands. Patients in the intervention arm will be asked informed consent for participating in the intervention. Results are expected in 2019 and will be disseminated through both national and international journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5532).

Validity and interobserver agreement of reagent strips for measurement of glucosuria.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of glucosuria by means of a visually readable reagent test strip is frequently used in a wide variety of clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of this semi-quantitative measurement of glucosuria compared to laboratory measurements of glucose concentrations in urine. METHODS: Reagent test strips (Combur³Test® Roche) from 375 artificially supplemented samples of urine, covering a wide range of glucose concentrations, were independently read by three different observers. Scores of the strips were categorized as 0, 1+, 2+, 3+ or 4+, in ascending degree of glucosuria. Results of the test-strips were compared to the quantitative measurement of urinary glucose concentration in the laboratory. RESULTS: 21.7% of reagent strips readings were discordant with the laboratory measurements (p < 0.001). Under- or overestimating the degree of glucosuria occurs predominantly in category 1+ and 2+. In category '0' only 5.1% of the readings were incorrect. The interobserver-agreement was very good with 85% overall agreement and multirater Kappa 0.81. Interobserver-scores of the reagent strips never deviated more than one category from each other. CONCLUSION: The validity as well as the interobserver-agreement for the semi-quantitative measurement of glucosuria using reagent strips is moderate, but sufficient for excluding glucosuria. However it is too imprecise for an accurate quantitative measurement. It might only be valuable in settings where automated readings are not available or suitable.