Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Racial/ethnic disparities in anticoagulation management are well established. Differences in warfarin monitoring can contribute to these disparities and should be measured. OBJECTIVE:We assessed for differences in international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring by race/ethnicity and language preference across safety-net care systems serving predominantly low-income, ethnically diverse populations. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional analysis of process and safety data shared from the Safety Promotion Action Research and Knowledge Network (SPARK-Net) initiative, a consortium of five California safety-net hospital systems. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, received warfarin for at least 56 days during the measurement period from July 2015 to June 2017, and had INR testing in an ambulatory care setting at a participating healthcare system. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:We conducted a scaled Poisson regression for adjusted rate ratio of having at least one INR checked per 56-day time period for which a patient had a warfarin prescription. Adjusting for age, sex, healthcare system, and insurance status/type, we assessed for racial/ethnic and language disparities in INR monitoring. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Of 8129 patients, 3615 (44%) were female; 1470 (18%), Black/African American; 3354 (41%), Hispanic/Latinx; 1210 (15%), Asian; 1643 (20%), White; and 452 (6%), other. Three thousand five hundred forty-nine (45%) were non-English preferring. We did not observe statistically significant disparities in the rate of appropriate INR monitoring by race/ethnicity or language; the primary source of variation was by healthcare network. Older age, female gender, and uninsured patients had a slightly higher rate of appropriate INR monitoring, but differences were not clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS:We did not find a race/ethnicity nor language disparity in INR monitoring; safety-net site was the main source of variation.

BACKGROUND:Studies report higher diagnostic accuracy using the collective intelligence (CI) of multiple clinicians compared with individual clinicians. However, the diagnostic process is iterative, and unexplored is the value of CI in improving clinical recommendations leading to a final diagnosis. METHODS:To compare the appropriateness of diagnostic recommendations advised by individual physicians versus the CI of physicians, we entered actual consultation requests sent by primary care physicians to specialists onto a web-based CI platform capable of collecting diagnostic recommendations (next steps for care) from multiple physicians. We solicited responses to 35 cases (12 endocrinology, 13 gynecology, 10 neurology) from ≥3 physicians of any specialty through the CI platform, which aggregated responses into a CI output. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of individual physician recommendations versus the CI output recommendations, using recommendations agreed upon by 2 specialists in the same specialty as a gold standard. The secondary outcome was the recommendations' potential for harm. RESULTS:= 0.11). LIMITATIONS:Cases were from a single institution. CI was solicited using a single algorithm/platform. CONCLUSIONS:When seeking specialist guidance, diagnostic recommendations from the CI of multiple physicians are more appropriate than recommendations from most individual physicians, measured against specialist recommendations. Although CI provides useful recommendations, some have potential for harm. Future research should explore how to use CI to improve diagnosis while limiting harm from inappropriate tests/therapies.

Importance:Black patients with hypertension often have the lowest rates of blood pressure (BP) control in clinical settings. It is unknown to what extent variation in health care processes explains this disparity. Objective:To assess whether and to what extent treatment intensification, scheduled follow-up interval, and missed visits are associated with racial and ethnic disparities in BP control. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cohort study, nested logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of BP control (defined as a systolic BP [SBP] level <140 mm Hg) by race and ethnicity, and a structural equation model was used to assess the association of treatment intensification, scheduled follow-up interval, and missed visits with racial and ethnic disparities in BP control. The study included 16 114 adults aged 20 years or older with hypertension and elevated BP (defined as an SBP level ≥140 mm Hg) during at least 1 clinic visit between January 1, 2015, and November 15, 2017. A total of 11 safety-net clinics within the San Francisco Health Network participated in the study. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures:Blood pressure control was assessed using the patient's most recent BP measurement as of November 15, 2017. Treatment intensification was calculated using the standard-based method, scored on a scale from -1.0 to 1.0, with -1.0 being the least amount of intensification and 1.0 being the most. Scheduled follow-up interval was defined as the mean number of days to the next scheduled visit after an elevated BP measurement. Missed visits measured the number of patients who did not show up for visits during the 4 weeks after an elevated BP measurement. Results:Among 16 114 adults with hypertension, the mean (SD) age was 58.6 (12.1) years, and 8098 patients (50.3%) were female. A total of 4658 patients (28.9%) were Asian, 3743 (23.2%) were Black, 3694 (22.9%) were Latinx, 2906 (18.0%) were White, and 1113 (6.9%) were of other races or ethnicities (including American Indian or Alaska Native [77 patients (0.4%)], Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander [217 patients (1.3%)], and unknown [819 patients (5.1%)]). Compared with patients from all racial and ethnic groups, Black patients had lower treatment intensification scores (mean [SD], -0.33 [0.26] vs -0.29 [0.25]; β = -0.03, P < .001) and missed more visits (mean [SD], 0.8 [1.5] visits vs 0.4 [1.1] visits; β = 0.35; P < .001). In contrast, Asian patients had higher treatment intensification scores (mean [SD], -0.26 [0.23]; β = 0.02; P < .001) and fewer missed visits (mean [SD], 0.2 [0.7] visits; β = -0.20; P < .001). Black patients were less likely (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P < .001) and Asian patients were more likely (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P < .001) to achieve BP control than patients from all racial or ethnic groups. Treatment intensification and missed visits accounted for 21% and 14%, respectively, of the total difference in BP control among Black patients and 26% and 13% of the difference among Asian patients. Conclusions and Relevance:This study's findings suggest that racial and ethnic inequities in treatment intensification may be associated with more than 20% of observed racial or ethnic disparities in BP control, and racial and ethnic differences in visit attendance may also play a role. Ensuring more equitable provision of treatment intensification could be a beneficial health care strategy to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in BP control.

BACKGROUND:A contextual understanding of hypertension control can inform population health management strategies to mitigate cardiovascular disease events. This retrospective cohort study links neighborhood-level data with patients' health records to describe racial/ethnic differences in uncontrolled hypertension and determine if and to what extent these differences are mediated by neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES). METHODS:We conducted a mediation analysis using a sample of patients with hypertension from 2 health care delivery systems in San Francisco over 2 years (n=47 031). We used generalized structural equation modeling, adjusted for age, sex, and health care system, to estimate the contribution of nSES to disparities in uncontrolled hypertension between White patients and Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian patients, respectively. Sensitivity analysis removed adjustment for health care system. RESULTS:Over half the cohort (62%) experienced uncontrolled hypertension during the study period. Racial/ethnic groups showed substantial differences in prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension and distribution of nSES quintiles. Compared with White patients, Black, and Hispanic/Latino patients had higher adjusted odds of uncontrolled hypertension: odds ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.67-1.91] and odds ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.29-1.47], respectively and nSES accounted for 7% of the disparity in both comparisons. Asian patients had slightly lower adjusted odds of uncontrolled hypertension when compared with White patients: odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99] and the mediating effect of nSES did not change the direction of the relationship. Sensitivity analysis increased the proportion mediated by nSES to 11% between Black and White patients and 13% between Hispanic/Latino and White patients, but did not influence differences between Asian and White patients. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with hypertension in this study, nSES mediated a small proportion of racial/ethnic disparities in uncontrolled hypertension. Population health management strategies may be most effective by focusing on additional structural and interpersonal pathways such as racism and discrimination in health care settings.

BACKGROUND:National guidelines recommend different pharmacologic management of hypertension (HTN) without comorbidities for Black/African Americans (BAA) compared with non-BAA. We sought to 1) identify if these recommendations have influenced prescription patterns in BAA and 2) identify the differences in uncontrolled HTN in BAA on different antihypertensive medications. METHODS:We constructed a linked retrospective observational cohort using 2 years of electronic health records data, comprising of patients aged 18 to 85 with HTN on 1- or 2-drug regimens, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), thiazide diuretics, or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We examined prescribing differences and HTN control in BAA versus non-BAA. RESULTS:< .001). For each drug regimen, there was more variation in HTN control within each group than between BAA and non-BAA. CONCLUSIONS:Providers seem to be following race-based guidelines for HTN, yet HTN control for BAA remains worse than non-BAA. An individualized approach to HTN therapy for all patients may be more important than race-based guidelines.

Background The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System was established to identify opportunities for blood pressure (BP) control improvement and to provide a mechanism for tracking improvement longitudinally. Methods and Results We conducted a serial cross-sectional study with queries against standardized electronic health record data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) common data model returned by 25 participating US health systems. Queries produced BP control metrics for adults with well-documented hypertension and a recent encounter at the health system for a series of 1-year measurement periods for each quarter of available data from January 2017 to March 2020. Aggregate weighted results are presented overall and by race and ethnicity. The most recent measurement period includes data from 1 737 995 patients, and 11 956 509 patient-years were included in the trend analysis. Overall, 15% were Black, 52% women, and 28% had diabetes. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was observed in 62% (range, 44%-74%) but varied by race and ethnicity, with the lowest BP control among Black patients at 57% (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.94). A new class of antihypertensive medication (medication intensification) was prescribed in just 12% (range, 0.6%-25%) of patient visits where BP was uncontrolled. However, when medication intensification occurred, there was a large decrease in systolic BP (≈15 mm Hg; range, 5-18 mm Hg). Conclusions Major opportunities exist for improving BP control and reducing disparities, especially through consistent medication intensification when BP is uncontrolled. These data demonstrate substantial room for improvement and opportunities to close health equity gaps.

Mobile health (mHealth) technologies improve hypertension outcomes, but it is unknown if this benefit applies to all populations. This review aimed to describe the impact of mHealth interventions on blood pressure outcomes in populations with disparities in digital health use. We conducted a systematic search to identify studies with systolic blood pressure (SBP) outcomes located in urban settings in high-income countries that included a digital health disparity population, defined as mean age ≥65 years; lower educational attainment (≥60% ≤high school education); and/or racial/ethnic minority (<50% non-Hispanic White for US studies). Interventions were categorized using an established self-management taxonomy. We conducted a narrative synthesis; among randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a six-month SBP outcome, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Twenty-nine articles (representing 25 studies) were included, of which 15 were RCTs. Fifteen studies used text messaging; twelve used mobile applications. Studies were included based on race/ethnicity (14), education (10), and/or age (6). Common intervention components were: lifestyle advice (20); provision of self-monitoring equipment (17); and training on digital device use (15). In the meta-analyses of seven RCTs, SBP reduction at 6-months in the intervention group (mean SBP difference = -4.10, 95% CI: [-6.38, -1.83]) was significant, but there was no significant difference in SBP change between the intervention and control groups (p = 0.48). The use of mHealth tools has shown promise for chronic disease management but few studies have included older, limited educational attainment, or minority populations. Additional robust studies with these populations are needed to determine what interventions work best for diverse hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND:In LABBPS (Los Angeles Barbershop Blood Pressure Study), pharmacist-led hypertension care in Los Angeles County Black-owned barbershops significantly improved blood pressure control in non-Hispanic Black men with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline. In this analysis, 10-year health outcomes and health care costs of 1 year of the LABBPS intervention versus control are projected. METHODS:A discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes projected blood pressure, medication-related adverse events, fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and noncardiovascular disease death in LABBPS participants. Program costs, total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for the LABBPS intervention and control arms from a health care sector perspective over a 10-year horizon. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. High and intermediate cost-effectiveness thresholds were defined as <$50 000 and <$150 000 per QALY gained, respectively. RESULTS:At 10 years, the intervention was projected to cost an average of $2356 (95% uncertainty interval, -$264 to $4611) more per participant than the control arm and gain 0.06 (95% uncertainty interval, 0.01-0.10) QALYs. The LABBPS intervention was highly cost-effective, with a mean cost of $42 717 per QALY gained (58% probability of being highly and 96% of being at least intermediately cost-effective). Exclusive use of generic drugs improved the cost-effectiveness to $17 162 per QALY gained. The LABBPS intervention would be only intermediately cost-effective if pharmacists were less likely to intensify antihypertensive medications when systolic blood pressure was ≥150 mm Hg or if pharmacist weekly time driving to barbershops increased. CONCLUSIONS:Hypertension care delivered by clinical pharmacists in Black barbershops is a highly cost-effective way to improve blood pressure control in Black men.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health crisis, having killed more than 514 000 US adults as of March 2, 2021. COVID-19 mitigation strategies have unintended consequences on managing chronic conditions such as hypertension, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and health disparities in the United States. During the first wave of the pandemic in the United States, the combination of observed racial/ethnic inequities in COVID-19 deaths and social unrest reinvigorated a national conversation about systemic racism in health care and society. The 4th Annual University of Utah Translational Hypertension Symposium gathered frontline clinicians, researchers, and leaders from diverse backgrounds to discuss the intersection of these 2 critical social and public health phenomena and to highlight preexisting disparities in hypertension treatment and control exacerbated by COVID-19. The discussion underscored environmental and socioeconomic factors that are deeply embedded in US health care and research that impact inequities in hypertension. Structural racism plays a central role at both the health system and individual levels. At the same time, virtual healthcare platforms are being accelerated into widespread use by COVID-19, which may widen the divide in healthcare access across levels of wealth, geography, and education. Blood pressure control rates are declining, especially among communities of color and those without health insurance or access to health care. Hypertension awareness, therapeutic lifestyle changes, and evidence-based pharmacotherapy are essential. There is a need to improve the implementation of community-based interventions and blood pressure self-monitoring, which can help build patient trust and increase healthcare engagement.