Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Despite the exponential growth in telemedicine visits in clinical practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains unknown if telemedicine visits achieved similar adherence to prescribed medications as in-person office visits for patients with heart failure. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Our study examined the association between telemedicine visits (vs in-person visits) and medication adherence in patients with heart failure. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of adult patients with a diagnosis of heart failure or an ejection fraction of ≤40% using data between April 1 and October 1, 2020. This period was used because New York University approved telemedicine visits for both established and new patients by April 1, 2020. The time zero window was between April 1 and October 1, 2020, then each identified patient was monitored for up to 180 days. Medication adherence was measured by the mean proportion of days covered (PDC) within 180 days, and categorized as adherent if the PDC was ≥0.8. Patients were included in the telemedicine exposure group or in-person group if all encounters were video visits or in-person office visits, respectively. Poisson regression and logistic regression models were used for the analyses. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 9521 individuals were included in this analysis (telemedicine visits only: n=830 in-person office visits only: n=8691). Overall, the mean age was 76.7 (SD 12.4) years. Most of the patients were White (n=6996, 73.5%), followed by Black (n=1060, 11.1%) and Asian (n=290, 3%). Over half of the patients were male (n=5383, 56.5%) and over half were married or living with partners (n=4914, 51.6%). Most patients' health insurance was covered by Medicare (n=7163, 75.2%), followed by commercial insurance (n=1687, 17.7%) and Medicaid (n=639, 6.7%). Overall, the average PDC was 0.81 (SD 0.286) and 71.3% (6793/9521) of patients had a PDC≥0.8. There was no significant difference in mean PDC between the telemedicine and in-person office groups (mean 0.794, SD 0.294 vs mean 0.812, SD 0.285) with a rate ratio of 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.02; P=.09). Similarly, there was no significant difference in adherence rates between the telemedicine and in-person office groups (573/830, 69% vs 6220/8691, 71.6%), with an odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.11; P=.12). The conclusion remained the same after adjusting for covariates (eg, age, sex, race, marriage, language, and insurance). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:We found similar rates of medication adherence among patients with heart failure who were being seen via telemedicine or in-person visits. Our findings are important for clinical practice because we provide real-world evidence that telemedicine can be an approach for outpatient visits for patients with heart failure. As telemedicine is more convenient and avoids transportation issues, it may be an alternative way to maintain the same medication adherence as in-person visits for patients with heart failure.

Electronic health record (EHR)-embedded tools are known to improve prescribing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure. However, physicians may perceive EHR tools to be unhelpful, and may be therefore hesitant to implement these in their practice. We surveyed cardiologists about two effective EHR-tools to improve heart failure care, and they perceived the EHR tools to be easy to use, helpful, and improve the overall management of their patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND:Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, recurrent cardiovascular events, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, and thus constitute a Class 1a recommendation in people with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, HF, or CKD and in people with severe albuminuria or HF, regardless of diabetes status. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to comprehensibly characterize the rate of SGLT2 inhibitor prescriptions among people with a Class 1a recommendation for SGLT2 inhibitor use. METHODS:Among 3,189,827 adults from 28 U.S. health systems within Optum Labs Data Warehouse between April 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, we assessed SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates, stratified by presence of diabetes and Class 1a recommendation. RESULTS:Among 716,387 adults with diabetes, 63.4% had a Class 1a recommendation for SGLT2 inhibitor therapy. There was little difference by Class 1a recommendation status (present: 11.9%; 95% CI: 11.9%-12.0% vs absent: 11.4%; 95% CI: 11.3%-11.6%; standardized mean difference: 1.3%). Among 2,473,440 adults without diabetes, 6.2% had a Class 1a recommendation for SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, and 3.1% (3.0%-3.2%) of those received a prescription. Internists/family practitioners initiated SGLT2 inhibitor prescriptions most commonly among people with diabetes, whereas specialists initiated SGLT2 inhibitor prescriptions most commonly among people without diabetes. No health system had >25% SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rate among people with a Class 1a recommendation. Health systems with higher proportions of patients with commercial insurance and lower proportions with Medicare had higher SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates. CONCLUSIONS:In this analysis of U.S. data from 2022 to 2023, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription among people with a Class 1a recommendation is low. Interventions are needed to increase uptake of guideline-recommended SGLT2 inhibitor use.

BACKGROUND:Despite advances in medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), major gaps in medication adherence to guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) remain. Greater continuity of care may impact medication adherence and reduced hospitalizations. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with a diagnosis of HF and EF ≤40% with ≥2 outpatient encounters between January 1, 2017 and January 10, 2021, prescribed ≥1 of the following GDMT: 1) Beta Blocker, 2) Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker/Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor, 3) Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist, 4) Sodium Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor. Continuity of care was calculated using the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index (COC) and the Usual Provider of Care (UPC) index, categorized by quantile. The primary outcome was adherence to GDMT, defined as average proportion of days covered ≥80% over 1 year. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and HF hospitalization at 1-year. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, insurance status, comorbidity index, number of visits and neighborhood SES index. RESULTS:Overall, 3,971 individuals were included (mean age 72 years (SD 14), 71% male, 66% White race). In adjusted analyses, compared to individuals in the highest COC quartile, individuals in the third COC quartile had higher odds of GDMT adherence (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03-1.53, P = .024). UPC tertile was not associated with adherence (all P > .05). Compared to the highest quantiles, the lowest UPC and COC quantiles had higher odds of all-cause (UPC: OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.23-1.91; COC: OR 2.54, 95%CI 1.94-3.34) and HF (UPC: OR 1.81, 95%CI 1.23-2.67; COC: OR 1.77, 95%CI 1.09-2.95) hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS:Continuity of care was not associated with GDMT adherence among patients with HFrEF but lower continuity of care was associated with increased all-cause and HF-hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND:Electronic health record (EHR) tools can improve prescribing of guideline-recommended therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but their effectiveness may vary by physician workload. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This paper aims to assess whether physician workload modifies the effectiveness of EHR tools for HFrEF. METHODS:This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure) cluster-randomized trial, which compared effectiveness of an alert vs message vs usual care on prescribing of mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs). The trial included adults with HFrEF seen in cardiology offices who were eligible for and not prescribed MRAs. Visit volume was defined at the cardiologist-level as number of visits per 6-month study period (high = upper tertile vs non-high = remaining). Analysis at the patient-level used likelihood ratio test for interaction with log-binomial models. RESULTS:Among 2,211 patients seen by 174 cardiologists, 932 (42.2%) were seen by high-volume cardiologists (median: 1,853; Q1-Q3: 1,637-2,225 visits/6 mo; and median: 10; Q1-Q3: 9-12 visits/half-day). MRA was prescribed to 5.5% in the high-volume vs 14.8% in the non-high-volume groups in the usual care arm, 10.3% vs 19.6% in the message arm, and 31.2% vs 28.2% in the alert arm, respectively. Visit volume modified treatment effect (P for interaction = 0.02) such that the alert was more effective in the high-volume group (relative risk: 5.16; 95% CI: 2.57-10.4) than the non-high-volume group (relative risk: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.29-2.90). CONCLUSIONS:An EHR-embedded alert increased prescribing by >5-fold among patients seen by high-volume cardiologists. Our findings support use of EHR alerts, especially in busy practice settings. (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure [BETTER CARE-HF]; NCT05275920).

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Medication nonadherence is common among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and can lead to increased hospitalization and mortality. Patients living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas may be at greater risk for medication nonadherence due to barriers such as lower access to transportation or pharmacies. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To examine the association between neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (nSES) and medication nonadherence among patients with HFrEF and to assess the mediating roles of access to transportation, walkability, and pharmacy density. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective cohort study was conducted between June 30, 2020, and December 31, 2021, at a large health system based primarily in New York City and surrounding areas. Adult patients with a diagnosis of HF, reduced EF on echocardiogram, and a prescription of at least 1 guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFrEF were included. EXPOSURE/UNASSIGNED:Patient addresses were geocoded, and nSES was calculated using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality SES index, which combines census-tract level measures of poverty, rent burden, unemployment, crowding, home value, and education, with higher values indicating higher nSES. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Medication nonadherence was obtained through linkage of health record prescription data with pharmacy fill data and was defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) of less than 80% over 6 months, averaged across GDMT medications. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 6247 patients, the mean (SD) age was 73 (14) years, and majority were male (4340 [69.5%]). There were 1011 (16.2%) Black participants, 735 (11.8%) Hispanic/Latinx participants, and 3929 (62.9%) White participants. Patients in lower nSES areas had higher rates of nonadherence, ranging from 51.7% in the lowest quartile (731 of 1086 participants) to 40.0% in the highest quartile (563 of 1086 participants) (P < .001). In adjusted analysis, patients living in the lower 2 nSES quartiles had significantly higher odds of nonadherence when compared with patients living in the highest nSES quartile (quartile 1: odds ratio [OR], 1.57 [95% CI, 1.35-1.83]; quartile 2: OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.56]). No mediation by access to transportation and pharmacy density was found, but a small amount of mediation by neighborhood walkability was observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this retrospective cohort study of patients with HFrEF, living in a lower nSES area was associated with higher rates of GDMT nonadherence. These findings highlight the importance of considering neighborhood-level disparities when developing approaches to improve medication adherence.

BACKGROUND:Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) are under-prescribed for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVE:To compare effectiveness of two automated, electronic health record (EHR)-embedded tools vs. usual care on MRA prescribing in eligible patients with HFrEF. METHODS:BETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools To Enhance and Reinforce CArdiovascular REcommendations for Heart Failure) was a three-arm, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of an alert during individual patient encounters vs. a message about multiple patients between encounters vs. usual care on MRA prescribing. We included adult patients with HFrEF, no active MRA prescription, no contraindication to MRA, and an outpatient cardiologist in a large health system. Patients were cluster-randomized by cardiologist (60 per arm). RESULTS:The study included 2,211 patients (alert: 755, message: 812, usual care [control]: 644), with average age 72.2 years, average EF 33%, who were predominantly male (71.4%) and White (68.9%). New MRA prescribing occurred in 29.6% of patients in the alert arm, 15.6% in the message arm, and 11.7% in the control arm. The alert more than doubled MRA prescribing compared to control (RR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.77-3.62, p<0.0001), and improved MRA prescribing compared to the message (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21-2.29, p=0.002). The number of patients with alert needed to result in an additional MRA prescription was 5.6. CONCLUSIONS:An automated, patient-specific, EHR-embedded alert increased MRA prescribing compared to both a message and usual care. Our findings highlight the potential for EHR-embedded tools to substantially increase prescription of life-saving therapies for HFrEF. (NCT05275920).

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The optimal revascularization approach in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ischemic heart disease ("ischemic cardiomyopathy") is unknown. Physician preferences regarding clinical equipoise for mode of revascularization and their willingness to consider offering enrollment in a randomized trial to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy have not been characterized. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted two anonymous online surveys: 1) a clinical case scenario-based survey to assess willingness to offer clinical trial enrollment for a patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (overall response rate to email invitation 0.45 %), and 2) a Delphi consensus-building survey to identify specific areas of clinical equipoise (overall response rate to email invitation 37 %). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.0001). In 17 scenarios (11.8 %), there was no difference in CABG or PCI appropriateness ratings, suggesting clinical equipoise in these settings. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our findings demonstrate willingness to consider offering enrollment in a randomized clinical trial and areas of clinical equipoise, two factors that support the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare clinical outcomes after revascularization with CABG vs. PCI in selected patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, suitable coronary anatomy and co-morbidity profile.