Search

BackgroundHealth status outcomes are increasingly being promoted as measures of health care quality, given their importance to patients. In heart failure (HF), an American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force proposed using the proportion of patients with preserved health status as a quality measure but not as a performance measure because risk adjustment methods were not available.MethodsWe built risk adjustment models for alive with preserved health status and for preserved health status alone in a prospective registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction across 146 US centers between December 2015 and October 2017. Preserved health status was defined as not having a ≥5-point decrease in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score at 1 year. Using only patient-level characteristics, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were developed for 1-year outcomes and validated using data from 1 to 2 years. We examined model calibration, discrimination, and variability in sites' unadjusted and adjusted rates.ResultsAmong 3932 participants (median age [interquartile range] 68 years [59-75], 29.7% female, 75.4% White), 2703 (68.7%) were alive with preserved health status, 902 (22.9%) were alive without preserved health status, and 327 (8.3%) had died by 1 year. The final risk adjustment model for alive with preserved health status included baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary, age, race, employment status, annual income, body mass index, depression, atrial fibrillation, renal function, number of hospitalizations in the past 1 year, and duration of HF (optimism-corrected C statistic=0.62 with excellent calibration). Similar results were observed when deaths were ignored. The risk standardized proportion of patients alive with preserved health status across the 146 sites ranged from 62% at the 10th percentile to 75% at the 90th percentile. Variability across sites was modest and changed minimally with risk adjustment.ConclusionsThrough leveraging data from a large, outpatient, observational registry, we identified key factors to risk adjust sites' proportions of patients with preserved health status. These data lay the foundation for building quality measures that quantify treatment outcomes from patients' perspectives.

AimsImproving the health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a primary treatment goal. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) improve short-term health status in clinical practice, but the sustainability of these improvements is unknown.Methods and resultsIn CHAMP-HF, a multicentre observational study of outpatients with HFrEF, patients initiated on ARNI were propensity score matched 1:2 to patients not using ARNI with Cox regression modelling time to ARNI initiation, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables, medical history, medications, and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. Repeated measures models for the overall KCCQ score and each domain compared the health status trajectories of patients initiated on ARNI vs. not. Among 3930 participants, 746 (19.0%) began ARNI, of whom 576 were matched to 1152 non-ARNI patients. Prior to matching, participants initiated on ARNI were younger, non-Hispanic, had lower EFs, more commonly had a history of ventricular arrhythmia, were less likely to be taking an ACEI/ARB, and more likely to be treated with beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. There were no differences after matching. In the matched cohort, participants initiated on ARNI experienced improved health status by 3 months that persisted through 12 months [KCCQ Overall Summary Score (OSS) = 73.4 vs. 70.8; P

BackgroundHeart failure is a common and devastating complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Prompt recognition of heart failure may avert hospitalization, facilitate use of guideline-directed therapies, and impact choice of T2D medications. We sought to determine the rate and factors associated with heart failure documentation in T2D patients with evidence of volume overload requiring loop diuretics.MethodsDCR is an on-going, prospective US registry of outpatient T2D patients from > 5000 cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinicians (current analysis used data from 2013-2019). Among T2D patients receiving loop diuretics, we examined the rate of chart documentation of heart failure. We used a 3-level hierarchical logistic regression model (patients nested within physician within practice) to examine factors associated with heart failure diagnosis.ResultsAmong 1,322,640 adults with T2D, 225,125 (17.0%) were receiving a loop diuretic, of whom 91,969 (40.9%) had documentation of heart failure. Male sex, lower body mass index, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease were associated with greater odds of heart failure diagnosis. After accounting for patient factors, patients seen by cardiologists were the most likely to have HF documented followed by PCPs and then endocrinologists.ConclusionsAmong US outpatients with T2D, 17% of patients had evidence of volume overload-defined by loop diuretic prescription-of whom fewer than half had a clinical diagnosis of heart failure. While there may be non-heart failure indications for loop diuretics, our data suggest that a substantial proportion of T2D patients may have unrecognized heart failure and therefore could be missing opportunities for targeted therapies that could alter the clinical course of heart failure.

AimsTo compare cardiovascular risk factor control in adults with diabetes participating in a national diabetes registry to those in the general population and to ascertain regional differences in diabetes care.MethodsAdults with diagnosed diabetes in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR) were compared with those in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2015 to 2016; standardized mean difference (SMD) > 0.2 defined significance. Regional differences were assessed in the DCR cohort; p

BackgroundA number of non-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lipid abnormalities are associated with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance, which may lead practitioners to use medications targeting these abnormal lipid fractions despite a lack of evidence or guideline recommendations.Methods and resultsAmong 382 921 US patients with type 2 diabetes (69% with cardiovascular disease, 76% on a statin), 95 995 (26%) were on some nonstatin lipid-lowering medication-19 265 (5%) on niacin, 32 919 (9%) on a fibrate and 69 513 (18%) on fish oil. Use of all three medications was stable over time and higher in patients with cardiovascular disease and with higher triglyceride levels, although even among patients with triglyceride levels

ObjectivesThis study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).BackgroundAlthough therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown.MethodsHealth status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status.ResultsMultivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to use a multicenter, observational outpatient registry of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to describe the association between changes in patients' medications with changes in health status.BackgroundAlleviating symptoms and improving function and quality of life for patients with HFrEF are primary treatment goals and potential indicators of quality. Whether titrating medications in routine clinical care improves patients' health status is unknown.MethodsThe association of any change in HFrEF medications with 3-month change in health status, as measured using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale, was determined in unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted (25 clinical characteristics, baseline health status) models using hierarchical linear regression.ResultsAmong 3,313 outpatients with HFrEF from 140 centers, 21.9% had medication changes. Three months later, 23.7% and 46.4% had clinically meaningfully worse (≥5-point decrease) and improved (≥5-point increase) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale scores. The 3-month median change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale score for patients whose HFrEF medications were changed was significantly larger (7.3 points; interquartile range: -3.1 to 20.8 points) than in patients whose medications were not changed (3.1 points; interquartile range: -4.7 to 12.5 points) (adjusted difference 3.0 points; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 4.6 points; p

AimTo investigate multiple risk factor target attainment in adults with diabetes mellitus (DM) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention and the predictors of such attainment in a contemporary DM registry.MethodsIn the US Diabetes Collaborative Registry we identified patients who were at target for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; < 53 mmol/mol (7%) or < 64 mmol/mol (8%) if with ASCVD), LDL cholesterol (< 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) or < 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) 1.8 if with ASCVD) and blood pressure (BP;

BackgroundAlthough practice guidelines stress individualization of glucose management in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the extent to which providers take patient factors into account when selecting medications is not well known.MethodsDiabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR) is an outpatient diabetes registry including primary care, cardiology, and endocrinology practices. T2D medications were grouped as those which may be suboptimal for key patient subgroups, and we examined patient factors associated with use of these agents using hierarchical, multivariable Poisson models.ResultsIn DCR, 157,551 patients from 374 US practices were prescribed a glucose-lowering medication. Patients with morbid obesity were more likely treated with medications prone to cause weight gain (relative rate [RR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.11). Older patients were more likely to be treated with medications with increased risk of hypoglycemia (RR 1.04 per 5 years, 95% CI 1.04-1.05). Patients with CKD 4/5 were less likely to be treated with agents with known risk in patients with advanced CKD (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77). Patients with coronary artery disease were no more or less likely to be treated with medications with potential cardiovascular safety issues (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.01).ConclusionsWe observed some targeted use of glucose-lowering therapies in certain subgroups but also identified potential opportunities for better personalization of treatment. Data sources such as the DCR can highlight potential areas for improving targeted approaches to pharmacologic therapy in order to optimize selection of patients most likely to benefit (and least likely to be harmed) from treatments.

Although guidelines and performance measures exist for patients with diabetes mellitus, achievement of these metrics is not well known. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® (DCR) was formed to understand the quality of diabetes mellitus care across the primary and specialty care continuum in the United States. We assessed the frequency of achievement of 7 diabetes mellitus-related quality metrics and variability across the Diabetes Collaborative Registry® sites. Among 574 972 patients with diabetes mellitus from 259 US practices, median (interquartile range) achievement of the quality metrics across the practices was the following: (1) glycemic control: 19% (5-47); (2) blood pressure control: 80% (67-88); (3) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with coronary artery disease: 62% (51-69); (4) nephropathy screening: 62% (53-71); (5) eye examination: 0.7% (0.0-79); (6) foot examination: 0.0% (0.0-2.3); and (7) tobacco screening/cessation counseling: 86% (80-94). In hierarchical, modified Poisson regression models, there was substantial variability in meeting these metrics across sites, particularly with documentation of glycemic control and eye and foot examinations. There was also notable variation across specialties, with endocrinology practices performing better on glycemic control and diabetes mellitus foot examinations and cardiology practices succeeding more in blood pressure control and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® was established to document and improve the quality of outpatient diabetes mellitus care. While target achievement of some metrics of cardiovascular risk modification was high, achievement of others was suboptimal and highly variable. This may be attributable to fragmentation of care, lack of ownership among various specialists concerning certain domains of care, incomplete documentation, true gaps in care, or a combination of these factors.