Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between severe mental illness (SMI) and quality of care in heart failure. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study between 2001 and 2004 of disabled Maryland Medicaid participants with heart failure. Quality measures and clinical outcomes were compared for individuals with and without SMI. RESULTS: Of 1801 individuals identified with heart failure, 341 had comorbid SMI. SMI was not associated with differences in quality measures, including left ventricular assessment [adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.99; 95% CI 0.91-1.07], utilization of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (aRR 1.04; 95% CI 0.92-1.17), or beta-blocker use (aRR 1.13; 95% CI 0.99-1.29). During the study period, 52.2% of individuals in the cohort filled a prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB and 45.5% filled a beta-blocker prescription. Individuals with and without SMI had similar rates of clinical outcomes, including hospitalizations, readmissions, and mortality. Both medication interventions were associated with improved mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of disabled Medicaid recipients with heart failure, persons with SMI received similar quality of care as those without SMI. Both groups had low rates of beneficial medical treatments. Quality improvement programs should consider how best to target these vulnerable populations.

In the era of "comparative effectiveness" research, each of the major stakeholders in healthcare-payors, patients, providers, and government-face a similar challenge. When making a decision about whether a new device, drug, or a diagnostic modality should be considered for use or coverage, what choices are best supported by the evidence? Medical evidence is defined by randomized controlled trials and by observational studies that vary greatly in their design, the accuracy of their analyses, and the relevance of their conclusions and recommendations. Hence, key decision makers increasingly rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses to facilitate the interpretation and application of research evidence. Knowing how to evaluate meta-analyses and understanding the potential pitfalls of the method are crucial for those involved in designing drug benefits. The authors highlight the process, strengths, and weaknesses of meta-analysis and explain how to judge the value of the results.