Faculty Bibliography

The purpose of this article is to summarize disparities in blood pressure (BP) by race in the United States, discuss evidence-based strategies to increase equity in BP, review recent American Heart Association BP equity initiatives, and highlight missed opportunities for achieving equity in hypertension. Over 122 million American adults have hypertension, with the highest prevalence among Black Americans. Racial disparities in hypertension and BP control in the United States are estimated to be the single largest contributor to the excess risk for cardiovascular disease among Black versus White adults. Worsening disparities in cardiovascular disease and life expectancy during the COVID-19 pandemic warrant an evaluation of the strategies and opportunities to increase equity in BP in the United States. Racial disparities in hypertension are largely driven by systemic inequities that limit access to quality education, economic opportunities, neighborhoods, and health care. To address these root causes, recent studies have evaluated evidence-based strategies, including community health workers, digital health interventions, team-based care, and mobile health care to enhance access to health education, screenings, and BP care in Black communities. In 2021, the American Heart Association made a $100 million pledge and 10 commitments to support health equity. This commitment included implementing multifaceted interventions with a focus on hypertension as a seminal risk factor contributing to disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality and morbidity. The American Heart Association is one organizational example of advocacy for equity in BP. Achieving equity nationwide will require sustained collaboration among individual stakeholders and public, private, and community organizations to address barriers across multiple socioecological levels.

BACKGROUND:Fewer than one-half of U.S. adults with hypertension (HTN) have it controlled and one-third are unaware of their condition. The emergency department (ED) represents a setting to improve HTN control by increasing awareness of asymptomatic hypertension (aHTN) according to the 2013 American College of Emergency Physicians asymptomatic elevated blood pressure clinical policy. OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence and management of aHTN in U.S. EDs. METHODS:We examined the 2016-2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys to provide a more valid estimate of aHTN visits in U.S. EDs. aHTN is defined as adult patients with blood pressure ≥ 160/100 mm Hg at triage and discharge without trauma or signs of end organ damage. We then stratified aHTN into a 160-179/100-109 mm Hg subgroup and > 180/110 mm Hg subgroup and examined diagnosis and treatment outcomes. RESULTS:Approximately 5.9% of total visits between 2016 and 2019 met the definition for aHTN and 74% of patients were discharged home, representing an estimated 26.5 million visits. Among those discharged home, emergency physicians diagnosed 13% (95% CI 10.6-15.8%) and treated aHTN in 3.9% (95% CI 2.8-5.5%) of patients in the higher aHTN subgroup. In the lower aHTN subgroup, diagnosis and treatment decreased to 3.1% (95% CI 2.4-4.1%) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.7-2.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Millions of ED patients found to have aHTN are discharged home without diagnosis or treatment. Although management practices follow clinical policy to delay treatment of aHTN, there are missed opportunities to diagnosis aHTN.

The Family Health Centers at New York University Langone (FHC), a federally qualified health center network in New York City, created a novel clinical decision support (CDS) tool that alerts primary health care providers to patients"™ gaps in care and triggers a dynamic, individualized order set on the basis of unique patient factors, enabling providers to readily act on each patient"™s specific gaps in care. FHC implemented this tool in 2017, starting with 15 protocols for quality measures; as of February 2024, there are 30 such protocols. During a patient visit with a provider, when there is a gap in care, a best-practice alert (BPA) fires, which includes an order set unique to the patient and visit. The provider can bypass the alert (not open it) or acknowledge the alert (open it). The provider may review the content of the order set and accept it as is or with modifications, or they can decline its recommendations if they believe it is not appropriate or plan to address the gap in care another way during the visit. To accept the dynamic order set is the intended workflow. The authors present data from September 2019 to January 2023 totaling 171,319 patient visits with at least one open gap in care among providers in pediatrics, family medicine, and internal medicine. The rate at which providers acknowledged the BPA in the first 6 months was 45% and steadily increased. In the last 6 months of the period, providers acknowledged the BPA 78% (19,281 of 24,575) of the time. Similarly, in the first 6 months, in all encounters in which a BPA was fired, 28.8% (8,585 of 29,829) had an order placed via the dynamic order set (accepted); that rate increased to 49.7% (12,210 of 24,575) during the last 6 months. This order set completion rate is notable given that most CDS use rates are low. Gap closure was higher when providers acknowledged the alert. In an analysis of all encounters with at least one open gap, spanning 2019"“2023, 46% (48,431 of 105,371) of the time, at least one gap was closed when the alert was acknowledged compared with 33% (21,993 of 65,948) when the alert was bypassed (and the recommendations of the dynamic order set were never followed). The authors show that CDS tools can be successfully implemented in a high-volume, low-resource setting if designed with efficiency in mind, ensuring provider utilization and clinical impact through closing care gaps. CDS tools that are dynamically patient specific can help improve quality of care if they are part of a broader culture of quality improvement.

BACKGROUND:Electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support is a scalable way to help standardize clinical care. Clinical decision support systems have not been extensively investigated in cirrhosis management. Human-centered design (HCD) is an approach that engages with potential users in intervention development. In this study, we applied HCD to design the features and interface for a clinical decision support system for cirrhosis management, called CirrhosisRx. METHODS:We conducted technical feasibility assessments to construct a visual blueprint that outlines the basic features of the interface. We then convened collaborative-design workshops with generalist and specialist clinicians. We elicited current workflows for cirrhosis management, assessed gaps in existing EHR systems, evaluated potential features, and refined the design prototype for CirrhosisRx. At the conclusion of each workshop, we analyzed recordings and transcripts. RESULTS:Workshop feedback showed that the aggregation of relevant clinical data into 6 cirrhosis decompensation domains (defined as common inpatient clinical scenarios) was the most important feature. Automatic inference of clinical events from EHR data, such as gastrointestinal bleeding from hemoglobin changes, was not accepted due to accuracy concerns. Visualizations for risk stratification scores were deemed not necessary. Lastly, the HCD co-design workshops allowed us to identify the target user population (generalists). CONCLUSIONS:This is one of the first applications of HCD to design the features and interface for an electronic intervention for cirrhosis management. The HCD process altered features, modified the design interface, and likely improved CirrhosisRx's overall usability. The finalized design for CirrhosisRx proceeded to development and production and will be tested for effectiveness in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. This work provides a model for the creation of other EHR-based interventions in hepatology care.

Significant quality gaps exist in the management of chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis. Clinical decision support (CDS) systems-information-driven tools based in and launched from the electronic health record-are attractive and potentially scalable prospective interventions that could help standardize clinical care in hepatology. Yet, CDS systems have had a mixed record in clinical medicine due to issues with interoperability and compatibility with clinical workflows. In this review, we discuss the conceptual origins of CDS systems, existing applications in liver diseases, issues and challenges with implementation, and emerging strategies to improve their integration in hepatology care.

BACKGROUND:Team-based care (TBC), a team of ≥2 healthcare professionals working collaboratively toward a shared clinical goal, is a recommended strategy to manage blood pressure (BP). However, the most effective and cost-effective TBC strategy is unknown. METHODS:A meta-analysis of clinical trials in US adults (aged ≥20 years) with uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg) was performed to estimate the systolic BP reduction for TBC strategies versus usual care at 12 months. TBC strategies were stratified by the inclusion of a nonphysician team member who could titrate antihypertensive medications. The validated BP Control Model-Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model was used to project the expected BP reductions out to 10 years and simulate cardiovascular disease events, direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years, and cost-effectiveness of TBC with physician and nonphysician titration. RESULTS:Among 19 studies comprising 5993 participants, the 12-month systolic BP change versus usual care was -5.0 (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.2) mm Hg for TBC with physician titration and -10.5 (-16.2 to -4.8) mm Hg for TBC with nonphysician titration. Relative to usual care at 10 years, TBC with nonphysician titration was estimated to cost $95 (95% uncertainty interval, -$563 to $664) more per patient and gain 0.022 (0.003-0.042) quality-adjusted life years, costing $4400/quality-adjusted life year gained. TBC with physician titration was estimated to cost more and gain fewer quality-adjusted life years than TBC with nonphysician titration. CONCLUSIONS:TBC with nonphysician titration yields superior hypertension outcomes compared with other strategies and is a cost-effective way to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality in the United States.

BACKGROUND:Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) is essential to effective management of hypertension. This study aims to evaluate effectiveness and implementation of SMBP that leverages: cellular-enabled home BP monitors without a need for Wi-Fi or Bluetooth; simple communication modalities such as text messaging to support patient engagement; and integration into existing team-based workflows in safety-net clinics. METHODS:This study will be conducted with patients in San Francisco who are treated within a network of safety-net clinics. English and Spanish-speaking patients with diagnosed hypertension will be eligible for the trial if they have recent BP readings ≥140/90 mmHg and do not have co-morbid conditions that make home BP monitoring more complex to manage. This study will implement a three-arm randomized controlled trial to compare varying levels of implementation support: 1) cellular-enabled BP monitors (with minimal implementation support), 2) cellular-enabled BP monitors with protocol-based implementation support (text reminders for patients; aggregated BP summaries sent to primary care providers), and 3) cellular-enabled BP monitors and pharmacist-led support (pharmacist coaching and independent medication adjustments). RESULTS:For the main analysis, we will use mixed effects linear regression to compare the change in primary outcome of systolic BP. Secondary outcomes include BP control (<140/90 mmHg), medication intensification, patient-reported outcomes, and implementation processes (i.e., engagement with the intervention). DISCUSSION:This study will design and test a digital health intervention for use in marginalized populations treated within safety net settings, evaluating both effectiveness and implementation to advance more equitable health outcomes.

BACKGROUND:The NIH Revitalization Act, implemented 29 years ago, set to improve the representation of women and minorities in clinical trials. In this study, we investigate progress made in all phase therapeutic clinical trials for neuro-epithelial CNS tumors stratified by demographic-specific age-adjusted disease incidence and mortality. Additionally, we identify workforce characteristics associated with clinical trials meeting established accrual benchmarks. METHODS:Registry study of published clinical trials for World Health Organization defined neuro-epithelial CNS tumors between January 2000 and December 2019. Study participants were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Population-based data originated from the CBTRUS for incidence analyses. SEER-18 Incidence-Based Mortality data was used for mortality analysis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and χ2 tests were used for data analysis. RESULTS:Among 662 published clinical trials representing 49,907 participants, 62.5% of participants were men and 37.5% women (P<0.0001) representing a mortality specific over-accrual for men (P=0.001). Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics represented 91.7%, 1.5%, 2.6%, and 1.7% of trial participants. Compared with mortality, Blacks (47% of expected mortality, P=0.008), Hispanics (17% of expected mortality, P<0.001) and Asians (33% of expected mortality, P<.001) were underrepresented compared with Whites (114% of expected mortality, P<0.001). Clinical trials meeting accrual benchmarks for race included minority authorship. CONCLUSIONS:Following the Revitalization Act, minorities and women remain underrepresented in therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial tumors, relative to disease incidence and mortality. Study accrual has improved with time. This study provides a framework for clinical trial accrual efforts and offers guidance regarding workforce considerations associated with enrollment of underserved patients.

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.