Early impact of guideline publication on angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor use among patients hospitalized for heart failure

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Implementation and uptake of novel and cost-effective medicines can improve patient health outcomes and healthcare efficiency. However, the uptake of new medicines into practice faces a wide range of obstacles. Earlier reviews provided insights into determinants for new medicine uptake (such as medicine, prescriber, patient, organization, and external environment factors). However, the methodological approaches used had limitations (e.g., single author, narrative review, narrow search, no quality assessment of reviewed evidence). This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators affecting the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice and identify areas for future research.

METHOD

A systematic search of literature was undertaken within seven databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO. Included in the review were qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies focused on adult participants (18 years and older) requiring or taking new medicine(s) for any condition, in the context of healthcare organizations and which identified factors affecting the uptake of new medicines. The methodological quality was assessed using QATSDD tool. A narrative synthesis of reported factors was conducted using framework analysis and a conceptual framework was utilised to group them.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies were included. Most studies (n = 62) were quantitative and used secondary data (n = 46) from various databases, e.g., insurance databases. The identified factors had a varied impact on the uptake of the different studied new medicines. Differently from earlier reviews, patient factors (patient education, engagement with treatment, therapy preferences), cost of new medicine, reimbursement and formulary conditions, and guidelines were suggested to influence the uptake. Also, the review highlighted that health economics, wider organizational factors, and underlying behaviours of adopters were not or under explored.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has identified a broad range of factors affecting the uptake of new medicines within healthcare organizations, which were grouped into patient, prescriber, medicine, organizational, and external environment factors. This systematic review also identifies additional factors affecting new medicine use not reported in earlier reviews, which included patient influence and education level, cost of new medicines, formulary and reimbursement restrictions, and guidelines.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42018108536).

Regional Variations in Heart Failure Quality and Outcomes: Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry

Background

Regional patient characteristics, care quality, and outcomes may differ based on a variety of factors among patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF). Regional disparities in outcomes of cardiovascular disease have been suggested across various regions in the United States. This study examined whether there are significant differences by region in quality of care and short‐term outcomes of hospitalized patients with HF across the United States.

Methods and Results

We examined regional demographics, quality measures, and short‐term outcomes across 4 US Census Bureau regions in patients hospitalized with HF and enrolled in the GWTG‐HF (Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure) registry from 2010 to 2016. Differences in length of stay and mortality by region were examined with multivariable logistic regression. The study included 423 333 patients hospitalized for HF in 488 hospitals. Patients in the Northeast were significantly older. Completion of achievement measures, with few exceptions, were met with similar frequency across regions. Multivariable analysis demonstrated significantly lower in‐hospital mortality in the Midwest compared with the Northeast (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51–0.8; P<0.00001). The length of stay varied significantly by region with a significantly higher risk‐adjusted length of stay in the Northeast compared with other regions.

Conclusions

Although we did not find any substantial differences by region in quality of care in patients hospitalized for HF, risk‐adjusted inpatient mortality was found to be lower in the Midwest compared with the Northeast, and may be secondary to unmeasured differences in patient characteristics, and to longer length of stay in the Northeast.

Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Printed educational materials are widely used dissemination strategies to improve the quality of healthcare professionals' practice and patient health outcomes. Traditionally they are presented in paper formats such as monographs, publication in peer-reviewed journals and clinical guidelines. This is the fourth update of the review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of printed educational materials (PEMs) on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient health outcomes. To explore the influence of some of the characteristics of the printed educational materials (e.g. source, content, format) on their effect on healthcare professionals' practice and patient health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HealthStar, CINAHL, ERIC, CAB Abstracts, Global Health, and EPOC Register from their inception to 6 February 2019. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials (RTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs) that evaluated the impact of PEMs on healthcare professionals' practice or patient health outcomes. We included three types of comparisons: (1) PEM versus no intervention, (2) PEM versus single intervention, (3) multifaceted intervention where PEM is included versus multifaceted intervention without PEM. Any objective measure of professional practice (e.g. prescriptions for a particular drug), or patient health outcomes (e.g. blood pressure) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers undertook data extraction independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. For analyses, we grouped the included studies according to study design, type of outcome and type of comparison. For controlled trials, we reported the median effect size for each outcome within each study, the median effect size across outcomes for each study and the median of these effect sizes across studies. Where data were available, we re-analysed the ITS studies by converting all data to a monthly basis and estimating the effect size from the change in the slope of the regression line between before and after implementation of the PEM. We reported median changes in slope for each outcome, for each study, and then across studies. We standardised all changes in slopes by their standard error, allowing comparisons and combination of different outcomes. We categorised each PEM according to potential effects modifiers related to the source of the PEMs, the channel used for their delivery, their content, and their format. We assessed the risks of bias of all the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 84 studies: 32 RTs, two CBAs and 50 ITS studies. Of the 32 RTs, 19 were cluster RTs that used various units of randomisation, such as practices, health centres, towns, or areas. The majority of the included studies (82/84) compared the effectiveness of PEMs to no intervention. Based on the RTs that provided moderate-certainty evidence, we found that PEMs distributed to healthcare professionals probably improve their practice, as measured with dichotomous variables, compared to no intervention (median absolute risk difference (ARD): 0.04; interquartile range (IQR): 0.01 to 0.09; 3,963 healthcare professionals randomised within 3073 units). We could not confirm this finding using the evidence gathered from continuous variables (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.11; IQR: -0.16 to 0.52; 1631 healthcare professionals randomised within 1373 units ), from the ITS studies (standardised median change in slope = 0.69; 35 studies), or from the CBA study because the certainty of this evidence was very low. We also found, based on RTs that provided moderate-certainty evidence, that PEMs distributed to healthcare professionals probably make little or no difference to patient health as measured using dichotomous variables, compared to no intervention (ARD: 0.02; IQR: -0.005 to 0.09; 935,015 patients randomised within 959 units). The evidence gathered from continuous variables (SMD: 0.05; IQR: -0.12 to 0.09; 6,737 patients randomised within 594 units) or from ITS study results (standardised median change in slope = 1.12; 8 studies) do not strengthen these findings because the certainty of this evidence was very low. Two studies (a randomised trial and a CBA) compared a paper-based version to a computerised version of the same PEM. From the RT that provided evidence of low certainty, we found that PEM in computerised versions may make little or no difference to professionals' practice compared to PEM in printed versions (ARD: -0.02; IQR: -0.03 to 0.00; 139 healthcare professionals randomised individually). This finding was not strengthened by the CBA study that provided very low certainty evidence (SMD: 0.44; 32 healthcare professionals). The data gathered did not allow us to conclude which PEM characteristics influenced their effectiveness. The methodological quality of the included studies was variable. Half of the included RTs were at risk of selection bias. Most of the ITS studies were conducted retrospectively, without prespecifying the expected effect of the intervention, or acknowledging the presence of a secular trend.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review suggest that, when used alone and compared to no intervention, PEMs may slightly improve healthcare professionals' practice outcomes and patient health outcomes. The effectiveness of PEMs compared to other interventions, or of PEMs as part of a multifaceted intervention, is uncertain.

Updates in heart failure 30-day readmission prevention

Heart failure (HF) and HF 30-day readmission rates have been a major focus of efforts to reduce health care cost in the recent era. Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2012 and the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), concerted efforts have focused on reduction of 30-day HF readmissions and other admission diagnoses targeted by the HRRP. Hospitals and organizations have instituted wide-ranging programs to reduce short-term readmissions, but the data supporting these programs is often mixed. In this review, we will discuss the challenges associated with reducing HF readmissions and summarize the rationale and effect of specific programs on HF 30-day readmission rates, ranging from medical therapy and adherence to remote hemodynamic monitoring. Finally, we will review the effect that the focus on reducing 30-day HF readmissions has had on the care of the HF patient.