Skip to content

IMplementation of an RCT to imProve Treatment With Oral AntiCoagulanTs in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

IMplementation of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to imProve Treatment With Oral AntiCoagulanTs in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03259373
Acronym
IMPACT-AFib
Enrollment
64666
Registered
2017-08-23
Start date
2017-09-25
Completion date
2021-12-31
Last updated
2025-04-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Atrial Fibrillation, Stroke

Keywords

AF, AFib, OAC, Atrial fibrillation, Oral anticoagulant, Education

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to use a decentralized claims database to determine whether education on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) among AF patients and their providers can result in increased use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) for stroke prevention among those AF patients with guideline-based indications for oral anticoagulation (CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 2 or greater). Specifically, the investigators will conduct a prospective, randomized, open-label education intervention trial to evaluate the effect of the early patient and provider education interventions on the proportion of patients with evidence of at least one OAC prescription fill (defined as one OAC dispensing or 4 international normalized ratio \[INR tests\] over the course of the follow-up through the date on which at least 80% of eligible study participants have at least 12 months of follow-up time). A total of approximately 80,000 patients will be enrolled within multiple major health plans across the United States. The randomization will be performed by the central coordinating center, and the health plans will mail the educational intervention materials to their members and providers.

Detailed description

The study is a prospective, randomized, and open-label education intervention trial. Patients with AF and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 2 or greater will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an intervention cohort and a control cohort within each participating health plan. The definition for OAC medication fill will be an OAC medication dispensing or at least 4 INR tests in the claims data. The claims records of the patients randomized to the intervention cohort will then be linked to fresh (i.e. about 1 month old) pharmacy claims data at the time of randomization. Patients without evidence of an OAC medication fill during the 12 months prior to randomization will be included in the patient-level and provider-level early educational intervention. In addition to usual care, these patients and their providers, where an individual provider may be identified, will receive a one-time mailing at trial start. Patients randomized to this early intervention with evidence of an OAC medication fill during the 12 months prior to randomization will be excluded from the trial. The control cohort will receive usual care over the initial study period. After the date on which at least 80% of eligible study participants have at least 12 months of follow-up time, fresh pharmacy claims data for the control intervention cohort that was generated and locked at the time of randomization will be used to assess trial eligibility, and those patients without evidence of an OAC medication fill during the 12 months prior to randomization will be included in the primary and secondary analyses as the control arm. Patients randomized to the control arm with evidence of an OAC medication fill during the 12 months prior to randomization will be excluded from the trial and will not be included in analyses. The baseline characteristics of the control patients will be examined at the same time point as the intervention patients, meaning at the time of randomization. The primary outcome is a comparison of the proportion of patients not on OAC during the 12 months prior to randomization, who were started on OAC over the course of the follow-up through the date on which at least 80% of eligible study participants have at least 12 months of follow-up time in the early versus the delayed intervention arm. A total of approximately 80,000 patients (randomized 1:1) across all participating data partners (Aetna, Harvard Pilgrim, Humana, and Optum) will be enrolled from participating data partners across the United States. The follow-up time for the primary outcome will be 12 months from the date at which at least 80% of eligible study participates are enrolled (date on which early intervention materials are mailed). The providers of patients in the control cohort who did not receive OAC medication during the course of the 12-month study period and meet the inclusion criteria will receive the delayed intervention: the provider-only education intervention, a one-time mailing administered 12 months after at least 80% of early intervention mailings have occurred (patients will not receive any educational materials). The investigators intend to assess the primary and secondary endpoints again 24 months after at least 80% of early intervention mailings have occurred to assess the durability and longer-term outcomes of the effect of the patient- and provider-level education intervention, as well as the use of OAC following the delayed provider-level education intervention. However, as this second assessment is exploratory, investigators may not conduct these analyses if the results of the primary outcome are consistently null. Because the Sentinel Distributed Database will be used for follow-up information, and this information is refreshed approximately quarterly and this is done on separate timetables for the different health plans, it is likely that when at least the required follow-up time is available for at least 80% of people, there will be more than 12 or 24 months of followup for over 80% of people. All participants' outcomes will be assessed using all possible person-time; patients will have different duration of follow-up.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALEarly Patient-Level and Provider-Level Educational Intervention

Letters to patients that (1) explain to the patient that he or she appears to have AF, characterize the risk of stroke, and emphasize that although there may be a medical reason, the patient does not seem to be on an anticoagulant and (2) encourage the patient to discuss this with his or her provider to ask if he or she might benefit from OAC therapy to prevent stroke. Early intervention letters to providers explain this project, the nature of the problem, and identify a list of the provider's patients who have been contacted, as the provider and patient letters will be sent at approximately the same time; describe evidence and guidelines regarding oral anticoagulation.

BEHAVIORALDelayed Provider-Level Educational Intervention

Delayed intervention letters to patients' providers, where they may be identified, that explain this project, the nature of the problem, and identify a list of their patients who are flagged as at risk for stroke and have not been treated with an oral anticoagulant; describe evidence and guidelines regarding oral anticoagulation.

Sponsors

Duke Clinical Research Institute
CollaboratorOTHER
Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative
CollaboratorOTHER
Humana Inc.
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Aetna, Inc.
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
OptumInsight Life Sciences, Inc.
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
CollaboratorFED
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
30 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Two or more diagnoses of AF (ICD-9 and/or 10 codes) at least one day apart and with at least one diagnosis within the last 12 months prior to the last date in the current approved data used for cohort identification 2. CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 2 or greater 3. Medical and pharmacy insurance coverage of at least the prior year as identified via administrative claims databases of one of the participating data partners as of the date of randomization 4. Age 30 years or greater as of the last date in the current approved data used for cohort identification

Exclusion criteria

1. Evidence of OAC medication fill during the 12 months prior to randomization (determined at randomization for the early intervention cohort and 12 months post-randomization for the delayed intervention cohort) 2. Conditions other than AF that require anticoagulation, including treatment of deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or ever having had a mechanical prosthetic heart valve prior to the last date in the current approved data used for cohort identification 3. Pregnancy within 6 months of the last date in the current approved data used for cohort identification 4. Any known history of intracranial hemorrhage prior to the last date in the current approved data used for cohort identification 5. Hospitalization for bleeding within the last 6 months of the last date in the current approved data used for cohort identification 6. Patients with recent P2Y12 antagonist use (i.e. clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticlopidine, or ticagrelor within 90 days of the last date in the current approved data used for cohort identification

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)Outcome assessed at 42 days, 90 days, 183 days, and one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the effect of the patient and provider education interventions (versus usual care with delayed provider education intervention) on the proportion of patients with evidence of at least one OAC prescription fill (defined as one OAC dispensing or 4 INR tests) over the course of the 12 months of follow-up.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Rates of Hospitalization for Hemorrhagic StrokeOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for hemorrhagic stroke
Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic StrokeOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke
Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic EmbolismOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism
Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic Embolism or BleedingOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism or bleeding
Rates of Hospitalization for BleedingOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for any bleeding
Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Unknown StrokeOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of ischemic / unknown stroke hospitalization
Number of Days Covered by OAC DispensingOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on proportion of days covered by OAC dispensings (prescription fills)
Proportion of Patients on Oral AnticoagulationOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on proportion of patients on oral anticoagulation at 12 months of follow-up
All-cause In-hospital Mortality RatesOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on all-cause in-hospital mortality rates
Health Care Utilization for AF PatientsOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on health care utilization for AF patients, which would be reported as counts of number of health care utilization events (outpatient visits, days hospitalized, number of emergency department visits, etc.)
Health Care Utilization for AF Patients, DaysOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on health care utilization for AF patients, which would be reported as counts of number of health care utilization events (outpatient visits, days hospitalized, number of emergency department visits, etc.)
Proportion of Patients Dispensed an OAC Within One YearOutcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on time to first OAC dispensing (prescription fill)

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Patients and their treating clinicians were identified through health insurance claims data from commercially-insured and Medicare Advantage populations.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Intervention
Educational mailing to (1) AF patients with guideline-based indications for oral anticoagulation (CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 2 or greater) who appear to not have received OAC treatment at time of randomization and (2) their providers, where an individual provider may be identified. Early Patient-Level and Provider-Level Educational Intervention: Letters to patients that (1) explain to the patient that he or she appears to have AF, characterize the risk of stroke, and emphasize that although there may be a medical reason, the patient does not seem to be on an anticoagulant and (2) encourage the patient to discuss this with his or her provider to ask if he or she might benefit from OAC therapy to prevent stroke. Early intervention letters to providers explain this project, the nature of the problem, and identify a list of the provider's patients who have been contacted, as the provider and patient letters will be sent at approximately the same time; describe evidence and guidelines regarding oral anticoagulation.
23
Control
Delayed Provider-Level Educational Intervention: The control arm patients received usual care for the time between randomization and a delayed educational mailing, which was sent after one year. Delayed intervention included the following: Educational mailing to providers of AF patients with guideline-based indications for oral anticoagulation (CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 2 or greater) who appear to not have received OAC treatment in the time following randomization. These letters to patients' providers, where they may be identified, explain this project, the nature of the problem, and identify a list of their patients who are flagged as at risk for stroke and have not been treated with an oral anticoagulant; describe evidence and guidelines regarding oral anticoagulation.
23
Total46

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyCensored between old dataset and the follow-up start date (due to changing in data over time)3,4463,599
Overall StudyCensored prior to old dataset, other reason (unable to specify reason from available data)3263
Overall StudyDisenrolled earlier than originally captured in data (due to changing in data over time)320344
Overall StudyEvidence of OAC treatment prior to start date based on more complete data636118
Overall StudyOn OAC treatment at follow up start (due to data lags)4,2724,411
Overall StudyUnable to be identified in dataset used for analysis4349

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicInterventionControlTotal
Age, Continuous77.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7
77.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7
77.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7
Age, Customized
Age 55-59 yr
569 Participants562 Participants1131 Participants
Age, Customized
Age < 55 yr
471 Participants436 Participants907 Participants
Age, Customized
Age 60-64 yr
934 Participants979 Participants1913 Participants
Age, Customized
Age 65-69 yr
2,341 Participants2,360 Participants4701 Participants
Age, Customized
Age 70-74 yr
4,642 Participants4,762 Participants9404 Participants
Age, Customized
Age 75-79 yr
4,814 Participants4,946 Participants9760 Participants
Age, Customized
Age 80-84 yr
4,182 Participants3,966 Participants8148 Participants
Age, Customized
Age 85-89 yr
3,169 Participants3,205 Participants6374 Participants
Age, Customized
Age 90 and older
2,424 Participants2,571 Participants4995 Participants
ATRIA Score ≥ 511,165 Participants11,239 Participants22404 Participants
CHA2DS2-VASc score, mean4.53 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7
4.50 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7
4.51 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7
Dialysis664 Participants616 Participants1280 Participants
History of CABG3,409 Participants3,500 Participants6909 Participants
History of coronary stent1,205 Participants1,188 Participants2393 Participants
History of diabetes9,671 Participants9,625 Participants19296 Participants
History of heart failure9,451 Participants9,452 Participants18903 Participants
History of hospitalization for bleeding4,409 Participants4,481 Participants8890 Participants
History of hypertension22,338 Participants22,583 Participants44921 Participants
History of MI2,827 Participants2,744 Participants5571 Participants
History of peripheral vascular disease6,001 Participants5,981 Participants11982 Participants
History of prior cerebrovascular disease4,944 Participants4,863 Participants9807 Participants
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Mid-Atlantic
1,162 Participants1,298 Participants2460 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Midwest
4,723 Participants4,885 Participants9608 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Mountain
1,484 Participants1,470 Participants2954 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
New England
645 Participants731 Participants1376 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Pacific
906 Participants859 Participants1765 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
South-Atlantic
14,340 Participants14,286 Participants28626 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Unknown/missing
286 Participants258 Participants544 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
11,262 Participants11,162 Participants22424 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
12,284 Participants12,625 Participants24909 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
493 / 23,546483 / 23,787
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 23,5460 / 23,787
serious
Total, serious adverse events
737 / 23,546760 / 23,787

Outcome results

Primary

Proportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)

Evaluate the effect of the patient and provider education interventions (versus usual care with delayed provider education intervention) on the proportion of patients with evidence of at least one OAC prescription fill (defined as one OAC dispensing or 4 INR tests) over the course of the 12 months of follow-up.

Time frame: Outcome assessed at 42 days, 90 days, 183 days, and one year of follow-up time.

Population: Overall number of participants, as well as prespecified sex, age, and CHA2DS2-VASC score subgroups.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at 90 days769 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age 65-74 years704 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, female1,146 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age 75-84 years987 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at 183 days1403 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age >=85424 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, male1,182 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, CHA2DS2-VASC score of 2-3657 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at 42 days394 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, CHA2DS2-VASC score of 4-51,041 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age <65 years141 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, CHA2DS2-VASC score >=6629 Participants
InterventionProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year (primary)2,328 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, CHA2DS2-VASC score >=6654 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year (primary)2,330 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at 183 days1362 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at 90 days738 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at 42 days361 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, female1,081 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, male1,249 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age <65 years145 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age 65-74 years707 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age 75-84 years954 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, age >=85440 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, CHA2DS2-VASC score of 2-3683 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients With Evidence of at Least One OAC Dispensing (Prescription Fill) (Defined as One OAC Dispensing or 4 INR (International Normalized Ratio) Tests)OAC initiation at one year, CHA2DS2-VASC score of 4-5992 Participants
Comparison: The null hypothesis was the that proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at one year were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.7995% CI: [0.95, 1.07]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 183 days were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.30795% CI: [0.96, 1.12]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 90 days were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.37595% CI: [0.95, 1.16]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 42 days were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.26595% CI: [0.94, 1.26]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among females were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.23795% CI: [0.97, 1.15]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among males were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.48795% CI: [0.89, 1.05]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \<= 64 yrs were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.95295% CI: [0.78, 1.27]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among age 65 - 74 yrs were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.69695% CI: [0.91, 1.14]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age 75 - 84 yrs were the same between groups.p-value: 0.58495% CI: [0.94, 1.13]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \>= 85 yrs were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.91195% CI: [0.87, 1.14]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC of 2-3 were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.74695% CI: [0.88, 1.1]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score of 4-5 were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.10995% CI: [0.98, 1.19]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score \>=6 were the same between the two groups.p-value: 0.24495% CI: [0.84, 1.05]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

All-cause In-hospital Mortality Rates

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on all-cause in-hospital mortality rates

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionAll-cause In-hospital Mortality Rates492 Participants
ControlAll-cause In-hospital Mortality Rates482 Participants
Comparison: There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.p-value: 0.64995% CI: [0.91, 1.16]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Health Care Utilization for AF Patients

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on health care utilization for AF patients, which would be reported as counts of number of health care utilization events (outpatient visits, days hospitalized, number of emergency department visits, etc.)

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of outpatient/ambulatory encounters38.17 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 36.74
InterventionHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of hospital admissions0.43 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 0.91
InterventionHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of emergency department (ED) encounters0.66 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 1.5
InterventionHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of institutional stays1.14 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 3.36
InterventionHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsTotal number of encounters at patient level40.40 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 39.45
ControlHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of institutional stays1.10 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 3.23
ControlHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsTotal number of encounters at patient level40.51 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 39.51
ControlHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of outpatient/ambulatory encounters38.27 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 36.81
ControlHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of emergency department (ED) encounters0.69 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 1.75
ControlHealth Care Utilization for AF PatientsNumber of hospital admissions0.44 Health care utilization eventsStandard Deviation 0.96
p-value: 0.587fixed-effect meta-analysis
p-value: 0.613fixed-effect meta-analysis
p-value: 0.515fixed-effect meta-analysis
p-value: 0.018fixed-effect meta-analysis
p-value: 0.956fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Health Care Utilization for AF Patients, Days

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on health care utilization for AF patients, which would be reported as counts of number of health care utilization events (outpatient visits, days hospitalized, number of emergency department visits, etc.)

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionHealth Care Utilization for AF Patients, DaysDays from modified intention-to-treat (mITT) start date to first outpatient/ambulatory encounter32.36 daysStandard Deviation 47.99
InterventionHealth Care Utilization for AF Patients, DaysNumber of days hospitalized3.01 daysStandard Deviation 9.74
ControlHealth Care Utilization for AF Patients, DaysDays from modified intention-to-treat (mITT) start date to first outpatient/ambulatory encounter32.76 daysStandard Deviation 49.42
ControlHealth Care Utilization for AF Patients, DaysNumber of days hospitalized3.10 daysStandard Deviation 9.27
p-value: 0.279fixed-effect meta-analysis
p-value: 0.143fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Number of Days Covered by OAC Dispensing

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on proportion of days covered by OAC dispensings (prescription fills)

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

Population: Number of days on an OAC during all follow-up time among those initiated on OAC

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionNumber of Days Covered by OAC Dispensing166.48 daysStandard Deviation 129.75
ControlNumber of Days Covered by OAC Dispensing168.15 daysStandard Deviation 130.12
p-value: 0.853fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Proportion of Patients Dispensed an OAC Within One Year

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on time to first OAC dispensing (prescription fill)

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
InterventionProportion of Patients Dispensed an OAC Within One Year9.84 Percent of participants
ControlProportion of Patients Dispensed an OAC Within One Year9.74 Percent of participants
p-value: 0.80895% CI: [0.95, 1.07]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Proportion of Patients on Oral Anticoagulation

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on proportion of patients on oral anticoagulation at 12 months of follow-up

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

Population: Patients actively on an oral anticoagulant (OAC) at the end of follow-up among those treated for at least 1 day.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionProportion of Patients on Oral Anticoagulation1,135 Participants
ControlProportion of Patients on Oral Anticoagulation1,183 Participants
p-value: 0.30395% CI: [0.82, 1.06]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Rates of Hospitalization for Bleeding

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for any bleeding

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionRates of Hospitalization for Bleeding382 Participants
ControlRates of Hospitalization for Bleeding385 Participants
Comparison: There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.p-value: 0.99295% CI: [0.87, 1.15]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Rates of Hospitalization for Hemorrhagic Stroke

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for hemorrhagic stroke

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionRates of Hospitalization for Hemorrhagic Stroke81 Participants
ControlRates of Hospitalization for Hemorrhagic Stroke64 Participants
Comparison: There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.p-value: 0.12295% CI: [0.93, 1.83]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke419 Participants
ControlRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke436 Participants
Comparison: There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.p-value: 0.7695% CI: [0.85, 1.13]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic Embolism

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic Embolism441 Participants
ControlRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic Embolism453 Participants
Comparison: There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.p-value: 0.7695% CI: [0.86, 1.14]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic Embolism or Bleeding

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism or bleeding

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic Embolism or Bleeding733 Participants
ControlRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Hemorrhagic Stroke or Systemic Embolism or Bleeding760 Participants
Comparison: There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.p-value: 0.61695% CI: [0.88, 1.08]fixed-effect meta-analysis
Secondary

Rates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Unknown Stroke

Evaluate the impact of the patient and provider education interventions on rates of ischemic / unknown stroke hospitalization

Time frame: Outcome assessed at one year of follow-up time.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Unknown Stroke341 Participants
ControlRates of Hospitalization for Ischemic or Unknown Stroke375 Participants
Comparison: There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.p-value: 0.395% CI: [0.79, 1.08]fixed-effect meta-analysis

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 12, 2026