Cardiologist concordance with the American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria for cardiac testing in patients with coronary artery disease

Implementation of regulatory guidance for JAK inhibitors use in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: An international appropriateness study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) proposed measures to address severe side effects linked to Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Use of these medications in individuals aged 65 and older, those at high cardiovascular risk, active or former long-term smokers, and those with increased cancer risk should be considered only if no alternatives exist. Caution is advised when administering JAKi to patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. We aim to implement recommendations from regulatory guidelines based on areas of uncertainty identified.

METHODS

A two-round modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology study was conducted. A panel of 21 gastroenterologists, dermatologists and rheumatologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of administering a JAKi for each proposed clinical scenario. Scores for appropriateness were categorized as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Two rounds were performed, each with online surveys and a virtual meeting to enable discussion and rating of each best practice.

RESULTS

Round 1 involved participants rating JAKi appropriateness and suggesting descriptors to reduce uncertainty. Survey results were discussed in a virtual meeting, identifying areas of disagreement. In round 2, participants rated their agreement with descriptors from round 1, and the level of uncertainty and disagreement reduced. Age flexibility is recommended in the absence of other risk factors. Active counseling on modifiable risks (e.g., overweight, mild hyperlipidemia and hypertension) and smoking cessation is advised. Uncertainty persists regarding cancer risk due to various factors.

CONCLUSIONS

We outlined regulatory guidance without a personalized evaluation of the patient's risk profile might lead to uncertainty and become an arid technicality. Therefore, we identified gaps and implemented PRAC recommendations to help health professionals in clinical practice.

Comparing two methods for determining appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging: Criteria from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American College of Radiology

BACKGROUND

Appropriate use criteria (AUC) developed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the appropriateness criteria (AC) developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) are two existing methods of rating appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). One study found poor agreement of ratings between the two methods. However, using the most contemporary AUC from 2013, it is unknown if poor agreement still exists.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort investigation comparing patients undergoing nuclear MPI between June 2011 and September 2014. The appropriateness category was determined based on the 2013 AUC (Appropriate, may be appropriate, rarely appropriate) and the 2010 ACR AC (usually appropriate, maybe appropriate, usually not appropriate). The primary outcome was the degree of the agreement between the two methods.

RESULTS

The kappa coefficient between ACR AC and AUC was 0.32, P < 0.0001, indicating poor agreement; 40 (8%) patients were classified by the AUC but could not be classified by the ACR AC.

CONCLUSION

The two methods for rating the appropriateness of MPI have poor agreement; a potential for disagreement between providers and payers if only one method is used.

Comparing two methods for determining appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging: Criteria from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American College of Radiology

BACKGROUND

Appropriate use criteria (AUC) developed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the appropriateness criteria (AC) developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) are two existing methods of rating appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). One study found poor agreement of ratings between the two methods. However, using the most contemporary AUC from 2013, it is unknown if poor agreement still exists.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort investigation comparing patients undergoing nuclear MPI between June 2011 and September 2014. The appropriateness category was determined based on the 2013 AUC (Appropriate, may be appropriate, rarely appropriate) and the 2010 ACR AC (usually appropriate, maybe appropriate, usually not appropriate). The primary outcome was the degree of the agreement between the two methods.

RESULTS

The kappa coefficient between ACR AC and AUC was 0.32, P < 0.0001, indicating poor agreement; 40 (8%) patients were classified by the AUC but could not be classified by the ACR AC.

CONCLUSION

The two methods for rating the appropriateness of MPI have poor agreement; a potential for disagreement between providers and payers if only one method is used.

Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relationship between inappropriate MPI and cardiovascular outcomes is poorly understood. We sought to systematically review the literature on appropriate use criteria (AUC) for MPI, including temporal trend of inappropriate testing and resulting cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE database for studies related to AUC and MPI. The co-primary outcomes were abnormal test results and the presence of cardiac ischemia. Random effects odds ratios (OR) were constructed using DerSimonian-Laird method.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with 23,443 patients were included. The prevalence of inappropriate testing was 14.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.6%-18.7%]. Inappropriate MPI studies were less likely to be abnormal (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.35-0.49, P < .0001) and to demonstrate ischemia (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, P < .0001) compared to appropriate testing. No difference in the rate of inappropriate tests was detected based on the midpoint of the enrollment year (P = .54). The pattern of ordering inappropriate studies was not different between cardiology and non-cardiology providers (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51-1.06, P = .10).

CONCLUSION

Inappropriate MPI studies are less likely to yield abnormal results or demonstrate myocardial ischemia. The rate of inappropriate MPI has not decreased over time.

Practice-Level Variation in Outpatient Cardiac Care and Association With Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Utilization of cardiac services varies across regions and hospitals, yet little is known regarding variation in the intensity of outpatient cardiac care across cardiology physician practices or the association with clinical endpoints, an area of potential importance to promote efficient care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 7 160 732 Medicare beneficiaries who received services from 5635 cardiology practices in 2012. Beneficiaries were assigned to practices providing the plurality of office visits, and practices were ranked and assigned to quartiles using the ratio of observed to predicted annual payments per beneficiary for common cardiac services (outpatient intensity index). The median (interquartile range) outpatient intensity index was 1.00 (0.81-1.24). Mean payments for beneficiaries attributed to practices in the highest (Q4) and lowest (Q1) quartile of outpatient intensity were: all cardiac payments (Q4 $1272 vs Q1 $581; ratio, 2.2); cardiac catheterization (Q4 $215 vs Q1 $64; ratio, 3.4); myocardial perfusion imaging (Q4 $253 vs Q1 $83; ratio, 3.0); and electrophysiology device procedures (Q4 $353 vs Q1 $142; ratio, 2.5). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for 1 incremental quartile of outpatient intensity for each outcome was: cardiac surgical/procedural hospitalization (1.09 [1.09, 1.10]); cardiac medical hospitalization (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]); noncardiac hospitalization (0.99 [0.99, 0.99]); and death at 1 year (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]).

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation in the intensity of outpatient care exists at the cardiology practice level, and higher intensity is not associated with reduced mortality or hospitalizations. Outpatient cardiac care is a potentially important target for efforts to improve efficiency in the Medicare population.

Can physicians identify inappropriate nuclear stress tests? An examination of inter-rater reliability for the 2009 appropriate use criteria for radionuclide imaging

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine inter-rater reliability of the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria for radionuclide imaging and whether physicians at various levels of training can effectively identify nuclear stress tests with inappropriate indications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Four hundred patients were randomly selected from a consecutive cohort of patients undergoing nuclear stress testing at an academic medical center. Raters with different levels of training (including cardiology attending physicians, cardiology fellows, internal medicine hospitalists, and internal medicine interns) classified individual nuclear stress tests using the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria. Consensus classification by 2 cardiologists was considered the operational gold standard, and sensitivity and specificity of individual raters for identifying inappropriate tests were calculated. Inter-rater reliability of the Appropriate Use Criteria was assessed using Cohen κ statistics for pairs of different raters. The mean age of patients was 61.5 years; 214 (54%) were female. The cardiologists rated 256 (64%) of 400 nuclear stress tests as appropriate, 68 (18%) as uncertain, 55 (14%) as inappropriate; 21 (5%) tests were unable to be classified. Inter-rater reliability for noncardiologist raters was modest (unweighted Cohen κ, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.55). Sensitivity of individual raters for identifying inappropriate tests ranged from 47% to 82%, while specificity ranged from 85% to 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-rater reliability for the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria for radionuclide imaging is modest, and there is considerable variation in the ability of raters at different levels of training to identify inappropriate tests.

Applicability of the Appropriate use Criteria for Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy

Background

Appropriateness Criteria for nuclear imaging exams were created by American College of Cardiology (ACC) e American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) to allow the rational use of tests. Little is known whether these criteria have been followed in clinical practice.

Objective

To evaluate whether the medical applications of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in a private nuclear medicine service of a tertiary cardiology hospital were suitable to the criteria of indications proposed by the American medical societies in 2005 and 2009 and compare the level of indication of both.

Methods

We included records of 383 patients that underwent MPS, November 2008 up to February 2009. Demographic characteristics, patient's origin, coronary risk factors, time of medical graduation and appropriateness criteria of medical applications were studied. The criteria were evaluated by two independent physicians and, in doubtful cases, defined by a medical expert in MPS.

Results

Mean age was 65 ± 12 years. Of the 367 records reviewed, 236 (64.3%) studies were performed in men and 75 (20.4%) were internee. To ACC 2005, 255 (69.5%) were considered appropriate indication and 13 (3.5%) inappropriate. With ACC 2009, 249 (67.8%) were considered appropriate indications and 13 (5.2%) inappropriate.

Conclusions

We observed a high rate of adequacy of medical indications for MPS. Compared to the 2005 version, 2009 did not change the results.