Search

Background: Heart failure guidelines recommend replacing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to reduce morbidity and mortality in NYHA Class II–III patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: This study aims to determine if a pharmacist-led outpatient ARNI replacement and titration program led to more patients achieving target doses of ARNI compared to usual care. Methods: A single health system, retrospective electronic medical record review identified 791 patients with active ARNI prescriptions and at least two outpatient cardiology visits with a pharmacist or usual care provider between January 2015 through September 2018. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved a target ARNI dose of 97/103 mg twice daily. The secondary outcomes were the median dose achieved, number of visits required to achieve target dose, hospitalizations, and all-cause death. Results: ARNI was initiated and continued by a pharmacist in 64 patients and 727 by usual care. More patients in the pharmacist group, 60.9% (n = 39), achieved target dose vs. 18.0% (n = 131) of patients managed by usual care (95% CI, 0.31–0.55, p < 0.0001). The pharmacist group also had higher median total daily dose of ARNI (200 mg (IQR = 300) vs 100 mg (IQR = 100), p < 0.0001) and more likely to achieve a higher total daily dose in fewer visits. Conclusions: An advanced practice provider pharmacist-led outpatient ARNI replacement and titration program was more effective in achieving target doses of ARNI in HFrEF patients as compared to usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Self-management programs for patients with heart failure can reduce hospitalizations and mortality. However, no programs have analyzed their usefulness for patients with low literacy. We compared the efficacy of a heart failure self-management program designed for patients with low literacy versus usual care. Methods We performed a 12-month randomized controlled trial. From November 2001 to April 2003, we enrolled participants aged 30–80, who had heart failure and took furosemide. Intervention patients received education on self-care emphasizing daily weight measurement, diuretic dose self-adjustment, and symptom recognition and response. Picture-based educational materials, a digital scale, and scheduled telephone follow-up were provided to reinforce adherence. Control patients received a generic heart failure brochure and usual care. Primary outcomes were combined hospitalization or death, and heart failure-related quality of life. Results 123 patients (64 control, 59 intervention) participated; 41% had inadequate literacy. Patients in the intervention group had a lower rate of hospitalization or death (crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.69; CI 0.4, 1.2; adjusted IRR = 0.53; CI 0.32, 0.89). This difference was larger for patients with low literacy (IRR = 0.39; CI 0.16, 0.91) than for higher literacy (IRR = 0.56; CI 0.3, 1.04), but the interaction was not statistically significant. At 12 months, more patients in the intervention group reported monitoring weights daily (79% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001). After adjusting for baseline demographic and treatment differences, we found no difference in heart failure-related quality of life at 12 months (difference = -2; CI -5, +9). Conclusion A primary care-based heart failure self-management program designed for patients with low literacy reduces the risk of hospitalizations or death.

Abstract Background Individuals with coronary artery disease are at high risk for adverse health outcomes. This risk can be diminished by aggressive lipid management, but adherence to lipid management guidelines is far from ideal and substantial racial disparities in care have been reported. Lipid treatment and goal attainment information is not readily available for large patient populations seen in the fee-for-service setting. As a result, national programs to improve lipid management in this setting may focus on lipid testing as an indicator of lipid management. We describe the detection, treatment, and control of dyslipdemia for African Americans and Caucasians with coronary artery disease to evaluate whether public health programs focusing on lipid testing can eliminate racial disparities in lipid management. Methods Physicians and medical practices with high numbers of prescriptions for coronary artery disease medications were invited to participate in the Quality Assurance Program. Medical records were reviewed from a random sample of patients with coronary artery disease seen from 1995 through 1998. Data related to the detection, treatment, and control of dyslipidemia were abstracted from the medical record and evaluated in cross-sectional stratified and logistic regression analyses using generalized estimation equations. Results Data from the medical records of 1,046 African Americans and 22,077 Caucasians seen in outpatient medical practices in 23 states were analyzed. African-American patients were younger, more likely to be women and to have diabetes, heart failure, and hypertension. The low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing rate for Caucasian men was over 1.4 times higher than that for African-American women and about 1.3 times higher than that for African-American men. Almost 60% of tested Caucasian men and less than half of tested African Americans were prescribed lipid-lowering drugs. Tested and treated Caucasian men had the highest LDL-C goal attainment (35%) and African-American men the lowest (21%). Conclusions Although increased lipid testing is clearly needed for African Americans, improvements in treatment and control are also necessary to eliminate racial disparities in lipid management. Disparities in treatment and goal attainment must be better understood and reflected in policy to improve the health of underserved populations.

Aims: The landmark STICH trial found that surgical revascularization compared to medical therapy alone improved survival in patients with heart failure (HF) of ischaemic aetiology and an ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35%. However, the interaction between the burden of medical co-morbidities and the benefit from surgical revascularization has not been previously described in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy.Methods and Results: The STICH trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00023595) enrolled patients ≥ 18 years of age with coronary artery disease amenable to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and an EF ≤ 35%. Eligible participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive medical therapy (MED) (n = 602) or MED/CABG (n = 610). A modified Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI) based on the availability of data and study definitions was calculated by summing the weighted points for all co-morbid conditions. Patients were divided into mild/moderate (CCI 1-4) and severe (CCI ≥ 5) co-morbidity. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between CCI and outcomes and the interaction between severity of co-morbidity and treatment effect. The study population included 349 patients (29%) with a mild/moderate CCI score and 863 patients (71%) with a severe CCI score. Patients with a severe CCI score had greater functional limitations based on 6-min walk test and impairments in health-related quality of life as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. A total of 161 patients (Kaplan-Meier rate = 50%) with a mild/moderate CCI score and 579 patients (Kaplan-Meier rate = 69%) with a severe CCI score died over a median follow-up of 9.8 years. After adjusting for baseline confounders, patients with a severe CCI score were at higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.74; P < 0.001). There was no interaction between CCI score and treatment effect on survival (P = 0.756).Conclusions: More than 70% of patients had a severe burden of medical co-morbidities at baseline, which was independently associated with increased risk of death. There was not a differential benefit of surgical revascularization with respect to survival based on severity of co-morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]