Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Ranolazine Versus Conventional Antianginals Users Among Veterans With Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris.

MedStar author(s):

Citation: American Journal of Cardiology. 2018 Sep 08PMID: 30292334Institution: MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2018 Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006ISSN:

0002-9149

Name of journal: The American journal of cardiologyAbstract: Copyright (c) 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.Real-world outcomes in patients with chronic stable angina treated with ranolazine and other antianginal medications as second- or third-line therapy are limited. In a historical cohort study of veterans with chronic stable angina, we compared time with coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalizations, and 1-year healthcare costs between new-users of ranolazine versus conventional antianginals (i.e., calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, or long-acting nitrates) as second- or third-line. Weighted regression models calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HR) at up to 8-year follow-up, and adjusted incremental costs in the first year. Weighted groups comprised 4,699 ranolazine users and 31,815 conventional antianginal users. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) occurred more often in ranolazine users compared with conventional antianginal users (HR 1.16; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.08 to 1.25, p <0.001), and coronary artery bypass grafting occurred less often (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, p <0.046). All-cause and atrial fibrillation (AF) hospitalizations were less common with ranolazine users compared with conventional users (all-cause: HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, p <0.010; AF:HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82, p <0.001), and acute coronary syndrome was more common (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.27, p <0.042). Adjusted 1-year costs were All authors: Bress AP, Crook J, Dodson JA, Greene T, King JB, Knippenberg K, LaFleur J, Munger MA, Nelson RE, Radwanski P, Reese T, Sauer BC, Weintraub WSFiscal year: FY2019Digital Object Identifier:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.08.027

Date added to catalog: 2018-10-10

Holdings ( 1 )
Title notes ( 4 )

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Journal Article	MedStar Authors Catalog	Article	30292334	Available		30292334

Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006

Real-world outcomes in patients with chronic stable angina treated with ranolazine and other antianginal medications as second- or third-line therapy are limited. In a historical cohort study of veterans with chronic stable angina, we compared time with coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalizations, and 1-year healthcare costs between new-users of ranolazine versus conventional antianginals (i.e., calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, or long-acting nitrates) as second- or third-line. Weighted regression models calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HR) at up to 8-year follow-up, and adjusted incremental costs in the first year. Weighted groups comprised 4,699 ranolazine users and 31,815 conventional antianginal users. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) occurred more often in ranolazine users compared with conventional antianginal users (HR 1.16; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.08 to 1.25, p <0.001), and coronary artery bypass grafting occurred less often (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, p <0.046). All-cause and atrial fibrillation (AF) hospitalizations were less common with ranolazine users compared with conventional users (all-cause: HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, p <0.010; AF:HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82, p <0.001), and acute coronary syndrome was more common (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.27, p <0.042). Adjusted 1-year costs were 4,517 in ranolazine users and 4,798 in conventional users (difference, 280; 95% CI 1,742 to ,181, p=0.71). In conclusion, ranolazine users had lower rates of coronary artery bypass grafting and all-cause and AF hospitalizations, but higher rates of percutaneous coronary intervention and hospitalizations due to acute coronary syndrome compared with conventional antianginal users. Healthcare costs were similar between ranolazine and conventional antianginal users.

English